HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
December 16, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday,
December 16, 2003, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Shepard, Cheek, Williams
and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Beard, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Terry Phillips, Sr.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions to our agenda
today?
The Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We’ll move ahead with our Employee of the Month and
presentations.
The Clerk:
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD:
November Employee of the Month
Mr. Leroy Anderson
Augusta Utilities Department
The Clerk: Mr. Leroy Anderson, Mr. Max Hicks, would you please join the
Mayor here down front? Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the Employee
Recognition Committee has selected Mr. Leroy Anderson with the Utilities Department,
the Engineering and Construction Division, as the Employee of the Month for November,
2003. Mr. Anderson has worked for the City of Augusta for over 17 years. His duties
include managing the county backflow prevention program, inspecting the backflow
device installation and maintaining device data base. He was nominated by his
supervisor, Ms. Karen Logan, who states: “Leroy Anderson has consistently exceeded
his duties and responsibilities the past several months and should be recognized by his
peers, management, and the leaders of this community for his efforts. Leroy has
successfully absorbed the duties and the responsibilities of the [inaudible] program who
left in January of this year. He took on the workload left by this departure with a positive
1
attitude and determination. It is the presence of these character traits in Leroy that have
allowed him to integrate the new tasks into his own workload without impacting his
ability to perform his other duties. He has been asked by the assistant director of Waste
Water Treatment Division to assist in the review of multi-million dollar projects to
upgrade the J. B. Messerly Waste Water Treatment Plant. This request demonstrates the
confident the Director has in Leroy’s ability to handle large, in-depth projects, and is a
solid indicator that he’s a strong, contributing member of this department. He has also
over the past months taken on some of the responsibilities of the assistant land acquisition
agent, who is out on sick leave. He has spent many hours working on his time to get
easements signed because he knew they were critical to the project they referenced, and
the best way to get the job done was to do it when it was convenient for the citizens we
were acquiring the land from. This mean working after 5 p.m., on the weekends, to
accommodate landowners who worked. The addition of this responsibility, coupled with
the primary function of his normal responsibilities and the special project on the
treatment plant proves Leroy’s ability to be versatile and multiple tasks. He has also been
attending classes pertaining to various aspects of his job to broaden his knowledge and to
help keep up with the changing criteria of the prevention program. The above mentioned
shows how Leroy’s initiative, independent thinking, flexibility, and willingness to make
the needs of the Augusta Utilities Department and the citizens of Augusta a priority. This
reflects credit upon himself and his department.” The committee felt based on Ms.
Logan’s recommendation and Mr. Anderson’s attributes, he should be awarded Employee
of the Month. Mr. Anderson is married to Margaret and they have two children and four
grandchildren. Congratulations. You’re making a difference.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: We will now have comments from Mr. Max Hicks, who is Mr.
Anderson’s supervisor, and Mr. Andy Cheek, who is Chairman of our Engineering
Services Committee.
Mr. Hicks: First let me say that we’re all pleased and proud of Leroy and what
he’s done. And he does indeed reflect the way we try to operate, and that is be ready and
willing to get the job done and give good customer service by handling it as it needs to
be. We’re proud of Leroy. He’s taken on multiple tasks, as have others, but he’s been
singled out and we really appreciate it. Thank you to the selection committee for
selecting Leroy.
Mr. Mayor: Let me just say that we’re here honoring Leroy today, and we
appreciate your efforts on behalf of out Utilities Department and the customers that we
serve. But Leroy’s service is indicative of the teamwork that goes on in Utilities. They
function together very well and they are accomplishing some marvelous work under the
bond programs and the benchmark program that we have underway. But Leroy,
congratulations. I know this is going to make it a merry Christmas for you. Thank you.
Mr. Cheek: Leroy, too, from Engineering Services, thank you for your hard work
and dedication. And I think everybody is aware of the commitment we made a few years
2
back to make this the finest water system in the world, and it’s dedication and leadership
like yours that is helping accomplish that dream here in Augusta. Thank you very much.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: Mr. J. B. Powell.
PRESENTATIONS:
Mr. J. B. Powell
th
Recognition of Commissioners Bridges and Kuhlke, 8th and 10 District
Commissioners
The Clerk: Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Bridges, will you please join the Mayor and
former Commissioner J. B. Powell down front, please?
Mr. Powell: You couldn’t see me, could you, Commissioner? I’ve been invisible
for a long time.
(Laughter)
Mr. Powell: We have some folks with us here, Mr. Mayor, that’s I’d like to ask,
that came down with us today to come up and join us. The Sheriff, or former Sheriff, our
Sheriff, Mr. Jesse Redd, Ms. Mary Ann Brigham, Brickman, I’m sorry. Now, Ms. Gibbs,
I’m sorry, she changed horses on me. If y’all would come up. And if I forgot anybody,
come up. Because this is a presentation that we would like to make to you,
Commissioner Ulmer Bridges and Commissioner Bill Kuhlke. Mr. Bridges, with deep
appreciation for your visionary guidance and undaunting leadership as a Commissioner
from 1996 to 2004, we’d just like to thank you for your service from the South Augusta
boys.
(Laughter)
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Powell: And last, but certainly not least, Mr. Kuhlke, with deep appreciation
for your visionary guidance, undaunting leadership as a Commissioner from 1996 to
2004, we’d like to thank you for your service and tell you how much we appreciate you
from the South Augusta boys.
(Laughter)
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Powell: And one more thing. How do you give a fellow something that’s got
everything? So we gave it a lot of deep thought, and the one thing that we figured Mr.
Kuhlke really needed that he has never had was a gavel.
3
(Laughter)
Mr. Powell: The inscription is real personal, Mr. Kuhlke, so you might want to
read that to yourself.
(Laughter)
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Powell: That’s all. Thank you very much for your service. Short and sweet.
Mr. Mayor: This is the last meeting for Commissioner Kuhlke and for
Commissioner Bridges, unless we have a called meeting before the end of the year.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: I have had the pleasure of serving with them the last five years
[inaudible] what we’d like to do is present you with a token of our appreciation for your
service. And so for each one of you I have a City of Augusta flag [inaudible] remind you
of your service here in this consolidate government. Thank you very much.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: Commissioner Kuhlke and Bridges, the Mayor and your colleagues
on the Augusta Commission present you with these plaques on behalf of the citizenry of
Augusta who salute and sincerely thank you for your outstanding dedication and service
on the Augusta Commission, January 1, 1996, through December 31, 2003.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk:
Brigadier General Jan Hicks
Fort Gordon
Gen. Hicks: Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, hello, Augusta. Mr.
Mayor, I would like to start out by saying, does anybody think the news on Sunday
morning was pretty good?
(A round of applause is given.)
Gen. Hicks: Those are 600 soldiers who probably will have some wonderful
stories to tell their grandkids in a few decades about how they were part of the [inaudible]
party that captured Saddam Hussein, so it was wonderful, wonderful news for the Army.
Well, you’ve been giving away things here, Mr. Mayor, and you give away a lot of
4
things. And you give a lot of things away to soldiers at Fort Gordon. For those of you
who don’t know, we have every month and every quarter and every year competitions
among these fabulous soldiers and our civilian workforce at Fort Gordon, and we have a
Volunteer of the Year, a Civilian Worker of the Year, a Soldier of the Year, and Non-
Commissioned Officer of the Year, and an Instructor of the Year. And for each of those,
Mr. Mayor is very, very generous and the City of Augusta is always so generous and at
least just a couple of dozen folks with local companies come out and give gifts and honor
our selectees. And when you’re competing against that large of a pool of great soldiers
and great civilian workforce, it’s really -- it’s a pretty tough, a pretty tough thing to win.
So thank you for your generosity. I’d like to give back to you, then, a plaque that says
from Fort Gordon to the Office of Mayor Bob Young, in recognition of your -- you don’t
have to read a thing -- in recognition --
(Laughter)
Gen. Hicks: -- in recognition of your support to the Fort Gordon community,
2003. Thanks for your generosity, Mr. Mayor, thanks, Augusta.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Gen. Hicks. I think we all know that there is no greater
issue in our city right now than the future of Fort Gordon. And we are glad to be able to
participate in the life of the Army at Fort Gordon and look forward to doing it for many,
many more years to come. Thank you.
Gen. Hicks: Thank you very much.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could I have a minute of personal privilege, please, sir?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. The Chair recognizes Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor, I’d like to say that I really appreciate
the awards and the recognition that you’ve given me this morning. I have appreciated the
opportunity for eight years to serve the citizens of Richmond County. I’m really thankful
that they allowed me to be their servant for that period of time. I have enjoyed working
with every one of you gentlemen here and I wish you the very best in the future. And I
want to thank today especially somebody that has really been there with me, too. She’s
been my secretary. You’ve probably got her on the phone if you called the house to get
me and she gets all the information first. But my supporter and my best friend, my wife,
Becky Bridges, I couldn’t have done it without her support and her encouragement. And
if I could embarrass her on camera right now and ask her to stand for just a minute.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Bridges: I appreciate it so much. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
5
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, may I say something?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke, go ahead. I’m not going to let anything stop you
today.
Mr. Kuhlke: No, I just want to echo what Ulmer said and I really have enjoyed
serving with Ulmer and serving with everybody that I’ve had a chance to serve with on
this Commission. It’s a tough job. It takes a lot of time. I appreciate all of my
constituents coming down to see me today.
(Laughter)
Mr. Kuhlke: I know that’s the reason you’re here.
(Laughter)
Mr. Kuhlke: But I’ve said this to a lot of folks. I have not served with anybody
that I didn’t like. Obviously, we all disagree at times on things. But it really has been my
pleasure to be on this Commission. I want to thank Lena Bonner. I didn’t vote for Lena
to be the Clerk. That was a big mistake. Going around and seeing these other
communities and so forth, we are very privileged to have her as Clerk. Jim Wall is a real
professional. The Commission is going to miss him next year. And Bob, I think you’ve
done a great job as far as being an ambassador for the City of Augusta and I appreciate all
that. So anyway, as I leave, I’m not going to be gone. I’m going to be looking to see
what y’all do, and I want to assure you that my prayers will be with you to make the best
decisions you possibly can.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Mr. Cheek for a point of personal privilege.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Too, I wanted to follow along with a couple
of comments here. You can look far and wide throughout this land and be hard pressed
to find two finer gentlemen who really epitomize what the word gentleman means. They
bring to, have brought to this city honor and integrity and dedication, the likes of which --
th
that have blessed this city. And on behalf of the people of the 6 District, thank you both
for your dedication and service. We haven’t always agreed, we haven’t always
disagreed, but it has truly been an honor and a privilege to sit with you on this board.
(A round of applause is given.)
6
Mr. Mayor: Before we get into the two resolutions, I’d like to take just a moment
to share with the members of the Commission, Commissioner Bridges and I were at a
reception last night that was sponsored by the Georgia Water Coalition, and that’s an
umbrella organization for civic groups and non-profits and environmental groups that are
involved with protecting the integrity of the basins, the river basins in the state of
Georgia. As you’ll recall, we passed a resolution in this chamber opposing inter-basin
transfers and water permit trading, and our position has been sustained up to a point in
the General Assembly, but more so through the passage of a resolution by this
Commission dozens and dozens of cities across this state have passed similar resolutions.
And so last night we were acknowledged by the Georgia Water Coalition, with special
recognition and appreciation to the City of Augusta for leadership in protecting Georgia’s
water resources, and I just wanted to share that on the record. Thank you very much.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll take up the two resolutions next.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE:
Honorable Leroy Sims, Coroner
Richmond County, Georgia
The Clerk: Whereas, Coroner Leroy Sims served as Coroner of Richmond
County for 16 years at the time of his death, the current Secretary of the Georgia
Coroners Association, a member of the Georgia Coroners Training Council, the Augusta
Coin Club, Richmond County Democratic Party, the Augusta Richmond County Good
Government Committee, Disabled American Veterans, Peace Officers Association of
Georgia, Frog Hollow Reunion Steering Committee, and the Elks Club of Augusta, and
Whereas, Coroner Sims was a long-time friend and colleague of the Augusta
Commission, and
Whereas, Coroner Sims spent the majority of his life as public servant, serving the
citizenry of Augusta Richmond County, the state of Georgia, and our country, and
Whereas, the members of the Augusta Commission were deeply saddened and
shocked to learn of the untimely passing of Coroner Sims, and
Whereas, the family, friends and constituents of Coroner Sims, who many
remembered as a good police officer but a dedicated coroner, which was exemplified
through his hard-working ways, and will be sorely missed by all who knew him and
loved him, may they always remember and never forget his love for each of them as he
shall forever live in their hearts, and
Therefore, be it resolved that it is with our sincere care and concern that we, the
Augusta Commission of Richmond County, Georgia, send these humble words
expressing our heartfelt sympathy. May you find comfort in knowing others care and
share in your loss.
7
Be it therefore resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the family
th
and friends of Coroner Sims, this 16 day of December in the Year of our Lord, 2003.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion for adoption of the resolution?
Mr. Shepard: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second. Any discussion? All in favor then please vote in the
affirmative.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next resolution, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION:
OMI
Re: Donation of Computers
The Clerk: Whereas, the Augusta Richmond County Commission would like to
recognize the contributions of Operation Management International, Inc. to the
community, and
Whereas, Operation Management International, OMI, donated 30 computers at six
local high schools, and
Whereas, the high schools receiving computers are A. R. Johnson, Glenn Hills,
Westside, T. W. Josey, Lucy C. Laney, and George P. Butler, and
Whereas, several Augusta Commissioners were instrumental in assisting OMI
identify the high schools that needed additional computers, and
Now, therefore, be it resolved, that that the Augusta Richmond County
Commission, recognizing OMI for their contribution to the Augusta community, and be it
further resolved that the Commission encourage other vendors doing business with
th
Augusta to consider similar community contributions, adopted this 16 day of December,
2003.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion for adoption of the resolution?
Mr. Mays: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
8
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: We have a representative from OMI here.
Mr. Mayor: Do we? Did you all wish to say anything today or does the
resolution say it all?
Mr. Speaker: The resolution says it all.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you for your support of public education in our
community. All in favor of that resolution, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: I recognize that most of the people in this chamber are here for item
number 55, which is the license revocation. We’re going to get to that in just a moment.
So please bear with us. Madame Clerk, what we’ll do now is take up the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Consent agenda consists of items 1 through 49. That’s
items 1 through 49.
Mr. Mayor: You want to read the zoning?
The Clerk: For the benefit of any objections to our planning petitions, when the
petitions are read, if there are any objectors, would you please signify your objection by
raising your hand?
PLANNING:
1. Z-03-97 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Rita Killaron requesting a Special
Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1
(F) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located at 1526 Pine Ridge Drive East and containing .35 acres.
(Tax Map 232; Parcel 191) DISTRICT 8
2. Z-03-98 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Sherman & Hemstreet; on behalf of
Tina Sewell, requesting a Special Exception to utilize an existing structure located in
a P-1 Zone for residential purposes per Section 20-2 (b) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at
1058 Bertram Road and containing .19 acres. (Tax Map 12 Parcel 55.5) DISTRICT
7
3. Z-03-99 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that parking be located in the
side yard; no parking shall face Peach Orchard Road; a petition by John Glenn
requesting change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone P-1
9
(Professional) with a Special Exception for residential purposes per Section 20-2 (b)
of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 3418 Peach Orchard Road and containing .57 acres. (Tax Map
133-1 Parcel 54) DISTRICT 6
4. Z-03-100- A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nordahl & Co., Inc., on behalf of
Marion Burdette et al, requesting a rezoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-
1A (One-family Residential) with a SPECIAL EXCEPTION to construct a patio
subdivision not exceeding 4 lots per acre per Section 9-2 affecting property located
at 3775 Belair Road and 2815 Burdette Drive and containing 39.6 acres. (Tax Map
53 Parcels 1.03 and 2) DISTRICT 3
5. Z-03-101 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) signage shall be
limited to one freestanding sign of no more than 20 square feet. Sign may not be
internally lit; 2) the only use of the entire property shall be animal grooming, if the
animal grooming operation ceases to than the zoning shall revert to R-3B (Multiple-
Family Residential); 3) no boarding of animals; 4) no development or construction
in the floodplain; a petition by Re/Max Masters, on behalf of Harry Fong,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multi-family Residential) to Zone
B-1 (Neighborhood Business) and approve by resolution for a dog grooming
operation affecting property located at a point located where the centerline of Raes
Creek intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Marks Church Road and
containing 3.92 acres. (Tax Map 31 Parcel 6) DISTRICT 3
6. Z-03-102 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Scott Godefroy, on behalf of G. B.
Sharma requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone B-2
(General Business) affecting property located at a point located where the centerline
of Rock Creek intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Claussen Road and
containing 10.11 acres. (Tax Map 7 Parcel 22.1) DISTRICT 7
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions?
Mr. Mayor: No hands were noted.
The Clerk: Okay. For our alcohol petitions:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
12. Motion to approve a request by John Bodie for a retail package Beer & Wine
license to be used in connection with John Bodie Sons, Inc. located at 306 13th
Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 8, 2003)
13. Motion to approve a request by Sunni Middlebrooks for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Sunni Neighborhood Store
located at 2849 Lumpkin Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 8, 2003)
10
14. Motion to approve a request by Raymond L. Walters for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Gate 2 Fast Fare located at 2985
Gordon Hwy. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 8, 2003)
15. Motion to approve a request by Raymond L. Walters for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with North Leg Fast Fare 5 located at
2061 Gordon Hwy. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee December 8, 2003)
16. Motion to approve a request by Raymond L. Walters for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Washington Road Fast Fare
located at 2851 Washington Rd. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 8, 2003)
17. Motion to approve a request by Raymond L. Walters for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Tobacco Road Fast Fare located
at 3705 Old Savannah Rd. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 8, 2003)
18. Motion to approve a request by Raymond L. Walters for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Deans Bridge Road Fast Fare
located at 4002 Deans Bridge Rd. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 8, 2003)
19. Motion to approve new ownership request by Kevin J. Goldsmith for a retail
package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with KDub, Inc. d/b/a
M & C Spirits located at 3334 Washington Rd. District 7. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee December 8, 2003)
20. Motion to approve a request by Jung S. Farrar for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Super Mini Mart located at 1812
Lumpkin Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 8, 2003)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: The Chair sees no hands. Gentlemen, what’s your wish with respect
to the consent agenda?
Mr. Shepard: I move approval.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and second. Would you like to pull any items?
Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Item 3 and item 37, please.
Mr. Mayor: 3 and 37. [inaudible]
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
11
Mr. Mayor: 28 for Mr. Colclough. Any others? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Item 41 and item 47.
Mr. Mayor: 41 and 47 for Mr. Williams. Anyone else? We’ve had requests to
pull items 3, 28, 37, 41 and 47. Do you wish to pull any other items? In that case, we’ll
move ahead with the vote on the consent agenda.
PLANNING:
1. Z-03-97 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Rita Killaron requesting a Special
Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1
(F) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located at 1526 Pine Ridge Drive East and containing .35 acres.
(Tax Map 232; Parcel 191) DISTRICT 8
2. Z-03-98 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Sherman & Hemstreet; on behalf of
Tina Sewell, requesting a Special Exception to utilize an existing structure located in
a P-1 Zone for residential purposes per Section 20-2 (b) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at
1058 Bertram Road and containing .19 acres. (Tax Map 12 Parcel 55.5) DISTRICT
7
3. Deleted from the consent agenda.
4. Z-03-100- A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nordahl & Co., Inc., on behalf of
Marion Burdette et al, requesting a rezoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-
1A (One-family Residential) with a SPECIAL EXCEPTION to construct a patio
subdivision not exceeding 4 lots per acre per Section 9-2 affecting property located
at 3775 Belair Road and 2815 Burdette Drive and containing 39.6 acres. (Tax Map
53 Parcels 1.03 and 2) DISTRICT 3
5. Z-03-101 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) signage shall be
limited to one freestanding sign of no more than 20 square feet. Sign may not be
internally lit; 2) the only use of the entire property shall be animal grooming, if the
animal grooming operation ceases to than the zoning shall revert to R-3B (Multiple-
Family Residential); 3) no boarding of animals; 4) no development or construction
in the floodplain; a petition by Re/Max Masters, on behalf of Harry Fong,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multi-family Residential) to Zone
B-1 (Neighborhood Business) and approve by resolution for a dog grooming
operation affecting property located at a point located where the centerline of Raes
Creek intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Marks Church Road and
containing 3.92 acres. (Tax Map 31 Parcel 6) DISTRICT 3
6. Z-03-102 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Scott Godefroy, on behalf of G. B.
Sharma requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone B-2
12
(General Business) affecting property located at a point located where the centerline
of Rock Creek intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Claussen Road and
containing 10.11 acres. (Tax Map 7 Parcel 22.1) DISTRICT 7
7. FINAL PLAT - WHEELER LAKE, PHASE ONE, SECTION ONE –S-647-
1-1 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of ATC
Development Corp., requesting final plat approval for Wheeler Lake, Phase One,
Section One. This residential development is located on West Wheeler Parkway,
south of the right-of-way of Old Marks Drive and contains 21 lots.
8. FINAL PLAT – WHEELER LAKE, PHASE ONE, SECTION TWO –S-647-
I-II – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of ATC
Development Corp., requesting final plat approval for Wheeler Lake, Phase One,
Section Two. This residential development is located on Wheeler Lake Road,
adjacent to Wheeler Lake, Phase One, Section One and containing 32 lots.
9. FINAL PLAT – PINEHURST, SECTION FOUR – S-665 - A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co., Inc., requesting
final plat approval for Pinehurst, Section Four. This residential subdivision is
located on Pineview Lane, adjacent to Pinehurst, Section Two and contains 24 lots.
10. FINAL PLAT – BRECKENRIDGE, SECTION SIX – S-666 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co., Inc., requesting
final plat approval for Breckenridge, Section Six. This residential subdivision is
located on Castle Rock Road adjacent to Breckenridge, Section Two and contains 27
lots.
11. FINAL PLAT – SANDERLING, PHASE ONE- S-638-1 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Preston Price, requesting final
plat approval for Sanderling, Phase One. This residential subdivision is located on
Ervay Street, adjacent to Dallas Height Subdivision and containing 44 lots.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
12. Motion to approve a request by John Bodie for a retail package Beer & Wine
license to be used in connection with John Bodie Sons, Inc. located at 306 13th
Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 8, 2003)
13. Motion to approve a request by Sunni Middlebrooks for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Sunni Neighborhood Store
located at 2849 Lumpkin Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 8, 2003)
14. Motion to approve a request by Raymond L. Walters for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Gate 2 Fast Fare located at 2985
Gordon Hwy. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 8, 2003)
13
15. Motion to approve a request by Raymond L. Walters for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with North Leg Fast Fare 5 located at
2061 Gordon Hwy. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee December 8, 2003)
16. Motion to approve a request by Raymond L. Walters for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Washington Road Fast Fare
located at 2851 Washington Rd. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 8, 2003)
17. Motion to approve a request by Raymond L. Walters for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Tobacco Road Fast Fare located
at 3705 Old Savannah Rd. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 8, 2003)
18. Motion to approve a request by Raymond L. Walters for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Deans Bridge Road Fast Fare
located at 4002 Deans Bridge Rd. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 8, 2003)
19. Motion to approve new ownership request by Kevin J. Goldsmith for a retail
package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with KDub, Inc. d/b/a
M & C Spirits located at 3334 Washington Rd. District 7. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee December 8, 2003)
20. Motion to approve a request by Jung S. Farrar for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Super Mini Mart located at 1812
Lumpkin Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 8, 2003)
21. Motion to approve the allocation of funding from the budget in the
approximate amount of $63,000 for the senior citizen operations at Sand Hills Park.
(Approved by Public Services and Finance Committees
December 8, 2003)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
22. Motion to approve retirement of Larry Dennis under the 1949 Pension Plan.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee December 8, 2003)
23. Motion to approve staff recommendation to revise HUD – 2000-2004
Consolidated Plan item and reprogram $60,000 FY ’03 – HOME funds to supply
grant to Promise Land Community Development Corp. to pay for the acquisition of
four (4) vacant lots. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee December 8,
2003)
24. Motion to approve disability retirement of Mr. Richard James under the
1977 Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee December 8,
2003)
25. Motion to approve retirement of Mr. Charles Grant under the 1949 Pension
Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee December 8, 2003)
FINANCE:
26. Motion to approve continuing commercial property insurance through Chubb.
(Approved by Finance Committee December 8, 2003)
14
27. Motion to approve Excess Workers Compensation Insurance with
Midwest Employers Casualty Company (an A rated insurer). (Approved by Finance
Committee December 8, 2003)
28. Deleted from the consent agenda.
29. Motion to accept a 2004 Tourism Grant for $20,500 for marketing
Augusta in the southeast. (Approved by Finance Committee December 8, 2003)
30. Motion to approve award of Bid Number 03-146 to General Electric Supply
Company in the amount of $118,448.98 to be funded from the 2003 Urban Services
Street Lighting Budget (Account # 271-04-1610/54.14410). (Approved by Finance
and Engineering Services Committees December 8, 2003)
31. Motion to approve a request from Paine College regarding City sponsorship
through the purchase of tickets for the Fourth Annual Masked Ball. (Approved by
Finance Committee December 8, 2003)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
32. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 184, Parcel
81.03, which is owned by Bush Field Aircraft Company, for right-of-way on the S.
R. 56 @ CR 4/New Goshen Road Project. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee December 8, 2003)
33. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 184, Parcel 85,
which is owned by Bush Field Aircraft Company, for right-of-way on the S. R. 56 @
CR 4/New Goshen Road Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
December 8, 2003)
34. Motion to approve the placement of the James Brown statue to be located in
the Board Street median opposite the Augusta Common. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee December 8, 2003)
35. Motion to approve award of contract to Total Maintenance Solutions for the
Sewer System Inspection and Evaluation Contract and to allocate $600,000.00 from
the 2002 Bond. (2002 CIP Bond Project Number 60140; Bid Item Number 03-077B)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 8, 2003)
36. Motion to approve Amendment No. 7 (Year 2004 Agreement Modifications)
to Agreement with OMI for a 2004 budget cost of $6,128,879.00. Funded by Account
No. 506043310-5211110. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December
8, 2003)
37. Deleted from the consent agenda.
38. Motion to receive as information a status report on the Biennial County and
Federal Aid Secondary Bridge Inspection Report dated December 6, 2002 from the
Georgia Department of Transportation. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee December 8, 2003)
39. Motion to receive as information an update on previously approved street
light installations at six locations in accordance with the Street Lighting Master
Plan. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 8, 2003)
40. Motion to receive as information an update on previously approved
installation of decorative street lights entering the National Hills Subdivision.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 8, 2003)
41. Deleted from the consent agenda.
15
42. Motion to approve scheduling the workshop on recaptured money on
January 9, 2004. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 8, 2003)
43. Motion to approve directing the Public Works Department to begin the
acquisition of easements and to develop three cost estimates for roadway
improvements to Lovers Lane and adjacent roads that will serve as evacuation
routes. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 8, 2003)
44. Motion to approve the Utilities Department to extend a sewer line along
Flowing Wells Road to a point that can serve the proposed Fire Station and approve
the Fire Department to provide their monetary portion to the Utilities Department.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 8, 2003)
45. Motion to approve the Utilities Department to immediately take steps to
remove any trees that are endangering the Canal bank and to develop a long-term
plan to address problematic areas of the Canal bank due to fallen trees. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee December 8, 2003)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
46. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held December 2, 2003.
APPOINTMENTS:
47. Deleted from the consent agenda.
48. Motion to approve the appointment of Jarrel Aloysius Gibson to the Augusta
Tree Commission representing District 5.
ATTORNEY:
49. Motion to amend the Augusta Richmond County City Code by adding a new
Section 3-7-32 for municipal airports to prohibit weapons. (Second reading -
approved by Commission December 2, 2003.)
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the consent agenda, please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-2, 4-27, 29-36, 38-40, 42-42, 48-49]
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] in just moment. If we could move ahead, Madame Clerk,
to item number 55.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
55. Hearing to discuss the revocation of the Augusta Video license.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, do you want to give just a quick background as to why we
are here [inaudible]?
Mr. Wall: With permission, I ask Mr. Revell from my office to [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible].
16
Mr. Revell: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First, I would like to make a part of the
record a copy of the December 8 letter that I sent to the attorneys for Augusta Video
giving them notice of this hearing, which states that the Commission will consider
whether the business tax certificate should be suspended or revoked for violations of the
county code section 2-1-38, Augusta’s adult entertainment ordinance, county code 6-1-1,
as amended, and/or the comprehensive zoning ordinance section 28-c. Mr. Mayor, you’ll
remember in January of this year, the District Court entered an injunction prohibiting
Augusta from enforcing its adult entertainment ordinance upon the application for a
business tax certificate applied for Augusta Video, Inc. The company was allowed to
open and operate its adult entertainment business because the City was enjoined from
enforcing the adult entertainment ordinance, and a business tax certificate was issued.
There was no application and there has been no issuance of an adult entertainment
permit, which is a separate and distinct permit or license required for an adult
th
entertainment business. At your instruction, we appealed that decision to the 11 Circuit
Court of Appeals, and in October the Court reversed Judge Bowen’s ruling and
determined that the adult entertainment ordinance had, in fact, been enacted properly. It
was a narrow legal question about whether that ordinance was zoning or licensing, and
the Court ruled, the trial Court ruled that it was a zoning ordinance, and therefore the
zoning procedure laws had to be followed. That was reversed. The trial Court has not
addressed the constitutionality of the new adult entertainment ordinance, and that would
be back before the Court at some later date. But in any event, having, the trial Court
th
having been reversed by the 11 Circuit, our position is that the adult entertainment
ordinance is legally enacted and legally enforceable. And because this entity, Augusta
Video, Inc. does not have an adult entertainment permit, its business tax certificate is
what is sought to be revoked for being out of compliance with existing zoning and with
existing adult entertainment ordinance. So it is -- want to make sure the Commission and
the Mayor understand this, the business tax certificate sought to be revoked because no
adult entertainment permit was ever issued.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Revell. We have a number of people here interested.
Could we have a show of hands so we can count for the record those people here who are
in opposition to continued operation of this business? [inaudible]
Mr. Wall: 98
The Clerk: 99
Mr. Mayor: Make it an even 100.
(100 objectors noted)
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Is the license holder represented today?
Mr. Maddox: Yes, sir.
17
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Before you speak, let me ask are there people here in favor of
the continued operation, so we can recognize your presence, if you would raise your
hands and count for the record. All right, if you will come up and identify yourself for
the record, please.
Mr. Maddox: Mayor Young, members of the Council, Commission, I’m sorry,
I’m Tom Maddox. I’ve been here several times. I want to thank you for your hospitality
each time that I have been here under somewhat hostile circumstances. You are fortunate
to have been represented by Mr. Wall and Mr. Revell. They have done an excellent job
under some very difficult circumstances, and have gotten, at least for the moment, a good
result for the City and for the County. What I’m here today to say first is that I am a bit
confused about what is exactly before the council, before the Commission this afternoon.
We received a faxed letter that referenced both the business tax certificate and the adult
entertainment ordinance and seemed to be saying that this proceeding would be moving
forward because the stay of the adult entertainment ordinance had been lifted. Either
way, our position is that because the agenda reads that we’re here about a license, I take
that to be the adult entertainment license, because if we’re here about the business tax
certificate, we’ve not received any certified notice and actually until Mr. Revell spoke
had not received any indication of exactly the basis for which the business tax certificate
was to be revoked. So our position is that that matter is not before the Commission this
afternoon until we receive some notice and opportunity exactly to respond. If we are, as
the agenda says and as the letter reflects here on the now-enforceable adult entertainment
ordinance, we’re here under provisions of section 6-1-20, which also say that the business
tax certificate holder is supposed to receive a certified invitation, a certified notice of the
proceedings, including some kind of delineation of the “charges” for which the certificate
is sought to be revoked. The -- when we got the injunction from the District Court, I
guess you could say we won the first round. The City and County has won the second
round. This is a 12 or 15 round fight. I think it’s important for everybody here to
understand where we are, Augusta Video and X-Mart and businesses like that, it gets
back -- you have a mass of support and I would defend the right of all these folks to be
here and express their views to the death, just as I would the cause that I’m here for
today. The people of Augusta and of Richmond County have voted with their feet and
with dollars in the last 12 months. You have 98 folks here today. My clients have that
many and more through the store each day. It is a fact, the only thing that we are here
today about and the only thing that is going to be litigated and take up this community’s
time and effort and money from here on out is where. The only thing left before the
District Court. Not if, but where. And the only reason that this injunction was
overturned was that the third reiteration that the council or Commission passed as the
litigation continued, because it was clear that Judge Bowen was going to enjoin the very
first and the oldest one, the only change that made any difference was the change in the
location. As Mr. Revell and Mr. Wall will tell you, it’s taken the position that a business
like Augusta Video cannot exist anywhere in Richmond County, simply cannot be upheld
by any Court. So the question from this point in is where. The only thing that you can
win by protracted litigation and continuing to pull our license is to have Augusta Video
move from where it is to some other place in the county. And that’s just a fact. And I
18
believe your attorneys will tell you that. Whether they will do it out here or not, they will
certainly tell you that in closed session. Section 6.1 is the section that says how these
proceedings are supposed to go. And in the last version of the ordinance that you passed,
and I’m here to hold your feet to that ordinance as I was to hold your feet to the
ordinance that you passed, I believe it was ’98 or ’96, anyway, the old one, it says that
notice of the decision, any decision you make here today has to be served on my clients
by certified mail or by personal service and that the City has to seek some kind of judicial
review of that. This body is not the final body. Now how did that come into being? That
came into being because when the matter went before the Federal Court, that was absent
from your very first ordinance. That was one of the things that you folks scurried around
in the last couple of meetings before the injunction to cure, because it wasn’t
constitutional simply for the body to make a decision, have our people locked down.
This final version, which may pass constitutional muster on those provisions, says that
the County has the burden of demonstrating to a Court, not just to yourselves, but to a
Court that your decision is valid. It also goes on to say that whatever decision you make
today is not valid until that Court proceeding is held. It says that you must bring the
Court proceeding. It says that we may, but it says that you must. And it says that the
licensee, meaning Augusta Video, may continue to operate until it becomes, your
decision becomes effective, meaning until it is reviewed and accepted by a Court. Now
for whatever basis we are here today, our position is that we don’t know the grounds and
therefore there’s a due process problem with being here and saying we’re going to revoke
your license today and it’s going to be effective today. We haven’t had a chance to
respond to that. The ordinance that we are here today is still unconstitutional. As Mr.
Revell said, we haven’t reached the main part of the case. We’re still in rounds one and
two. The only thing at issue was a small, specific Georgia law about how zoning matters
were enacted. We never got to the federal constitutional issues that you and I have talked
about before. There is a due process problem if you continue today and make a decision
today that is effective today. That would all be cured if you simply follow your own
ordinance and take the proceedings as laid out in 6-1-20. And also, from this point on,
because we opened up as I recall in June of 2002, and some of our staff were immediately
arrested and jailed and the business closed down, our position is that everything that you
did after that is not effective against Augusta Video at this location because we’re
grandfathered under your grandfather provisions of your ordinances and of Georgia law.
Now this is round two or three or a 12-round fight. We’re going to -- the only question at
this point is where Augusta Video will be located. The other question that you have in
your power is to say are we going to have one lawsuit or two? Are we going to be in one
ring, the Federal Court where the case is now and is ready to move along, or are we going
to be in two courts? If you proceed today under your ordinance, this matter will end up
in the Superior Court of Richmond County and eventually the Court of Appeals of
Georgia and the Georgia Supreme Court, which means we’ll be litigating some of the
same issues in both Courts. The issue about the validity of your last two ordinances is
not final because the Georgia Supreme Court holds and entirely different view, we think,
th
than the 11 Circuit Court of Appeals with the federal case. So my recommendation?
And I make recommendations, you’ve ignored them in the past and I understand that’s
your prerogative to do so, we keep this in one Court. If you go through the procedures
that you adopted last summer, at about the same time this matter is going to be back
19
before Judge Bowen in the Federal Court, instead of having all your lawyers in two
different Courts, they can all be handled about the same time in the same timeframe with
Judge Bowen. He will or will not issue an injunction based on the federal constitutional
principles that we’ve raised. If he doesn’t, then we won’t have a leg to stand on, you’ll
be able to keep us out of business until the case is over. If he does, then there is no
reason to waste time here today or in the Superior Court of Richmond County having an
ancillary or secondary or at least a parallel lawsuit. That’s our position. I hope that you
will -- I know that you have to take the beliefs of your constituency into account, but you
also have to take into account the law and otherwise -- what would benefit the people of
Richmond County, and I do not believe that having two lawsuits over the same issues
would be beneficial. Thanks again for your time.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Wall, can you respond to the question raised
[inaudible]?
Mr. Wall: I can. As Mr. Revell has pointed out, this is a consideration of the
revocation of the business tax certificate. It is not the adult entertainment permit that is --
it was never issued. The reason it was never -- it was not applied for. The reason that it
was never applied for apparently was their contention that our ordinance was
unconstitutional, and even though we amended that ordinance, they have never sought
nor obtained an adult entertainment permit. So therefore, the notice that was given to
them cites the code section, Augusta Richmond County Code Section 2-1-38, which is
the right to revoke a business tax certificate, and there is a requirement that there be
notice and a hearing. The letter that Mr. Revell has asked to be made a part of the record
points to that code section and specifically says that it is to consider whether Augusta
Video’s business tax certificate should be suspended or revoked. So that is the narrow
issue. They did not have an adult entertainment permit. They’ve not sought one. They
do not have one. One is required under the ordinance. And so we submit that they are
not properly in business, and the business tax certificate should be revoked and the notice
procedure has been satisfied.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Are there any questions for either of the parties from the
Commissioners? Any comments? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just a comment, Mr. Mayor. I discussed this problem with folks over
in Aiken, and one of the things that has been a long term problem to both the citizens and
neighborhoods of this city is spot zoning. I think we are all aware of the potential other
sites that may be usable under the current zoning ordinances. Therefore, Mr. Mayor, I
want to recommend that we do similar things, take similar actions to what Aiken has
done, and down zone, go back and follow -- I think it’s code section 13-8 or 13-3 in the
zoning and planning ordinance, called the reversionary clause -- that we abandon the
practice of viewing zoning as some type of value added to property and revert these
things back to R-1A or whatever in order to keep inappropriate businesses, this or any
other, from locating in areas. These zoning plot sit as time bombs for neighborhoods.
Aiken was very successful in removing these from their city limits and allowing zoning
to occur when the property was needed. These properties have been sitting in some cases
20
30 years with no site plans, no development plans in place. This would position Augusta
to be able to determine, if we have to deal with this, perhaps a more appropriate location
versus the areas that are just sitting out there waiting for this to be dropped in people’s
laps. So I would offer to this Commission whether this is the appropriate time or not a
motion that we take forth a review of these other properties under the reversionary clause,
to revert them back to R-1A or their previous zoning as is in accordance with our zoning
and planning ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, I appreciate the motion. I’m going to ask you to hold, it
though, because the agenda item specifically goes to the holder of this license, and we
need to deal with that issue, get that off the table first.
Mr. Cheek: Well, this is --
Mr. Mayor: Then I’ll be glad to deal with it.
Mr. Cheek: -- dealing with it down the road, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I appreciate that. We’ll revisit that in a moment. But what we’d like
to do is dispose of the matter that is on the agenda right now. If anyone has any other
comments or questions with respect to the license of this particular business. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, let me say this. First, I think it’s great that we’ve
got as many young people that are here today that are concerned about their government.
And while only just a little bit older than a few of some of the tallest ones, I got my start
in this chamber many years ago, too, and working in first campaigns and also from the
standpoint of even being a candidate over 30 years ago, winning my District by 62%.
However, the procedures that were at hand would not allow me to take office. Therefore,
through some years of litigation and under the veil of democracy, that, with a very
competent at that time County Attorney who was succeeded by another competent
County Attorney, had the vision to see what was coming in Augusta, and the system of
voting was changed and therefore a more democratic way of electing people throughout
this community was done. Sometimes in a democracy you have to even challenge from
within. Many times, things are controversial. Many times, they are not what you want
them to be. Having gotten a little larger and a lot grayer, I will not attempt today to make
a stand for this gentleman’s First Amendment rights as a crusade, but I think we need to
get some clarity on where we are going. And this may be unpopular, but sometimes
unpopular things need to be discussed. I was there in the courtroom when we voted on
this last decision. I echoed something that I’ve echoed in public, Mr. Mayor, I’ve echoed
it in our legal sessions. Something I’ve done in this government and in two previous
governments. That to a point we must decide if you’re going to have situations that are
drawn on a moral line, how do you decide? Do you decide it based on mere existence?
Do you decide it based on zoning? Do you just simply say well, I don’t want it, I’m not
going to do it? Well, now, since that decision was made, the zoning that we’ve got -- and
while I’m talking, Mr. Mayor, so that you don’t gavel me out, if there’s a - if, if, if our
Director of Planning & Zoning, do you have that map before you today? Is anybody here
21
with Zoning, with it’s Attorney or anybody, the current map that we’ve got? And, and I
think it’s important that before persons leave, regardless of the way this decision comes
out -- and in all probability it will be a majority decision. But I think some people need
to take a close look at what I warned you about over a year ago. This, this map, and I
agree with the Mayor, the motion that Mr. Cheek made may not be the place today, but at
some point in time, this map, if we’re going to be honest with each other, if you’re going
to get it on the question of what can go where, is more scary than the issue in which
you’re dealing with. Those issues, and you can correct me, [inaudible], I believe that the
red highlighted [inaudible] on there are the areas in which under our current law that if
we decide to take a license today or decide that this place is not going to be in business,
that to a point every one of those red highlighted places, that they could very well be in
business in those that are highlighted which are far more populated, which are far more
visible that are on corridors in this community, by which families already pass, and by
which they are not in -- even as isolated as the area that’s there. Now while Andy’s
motion may not be relevant to what’s on the floor right now, it’s very relevant in this
community to a point that if you’ve got -- and we’ve made the statement that we cannot
keep such a business out -- if that has been said and if the red places show where they can
go, then I think some folk need to seriously look at that from the standpoint [inaudible]
because do you, do you stop where it is today and then you run the potential further up on
Gordon Highway, do you run it from Riverwatch Parkway, does it go then on 520, out
[inaudible] in the same traffic that’s your Target center and your areas are that are there?
Does it go into those that border on residential communities? I think we need to be very
careful about where existing zoning already is. Now I also warn my colleagues about
changing the law to fit a pattern. You cannot every year when something comes up and
you write a law. You say okay, if you’re going to base this on zoning, then what we do
the next time a zoning issues pops up here, this is how this one got into play. We put in
zoning that we said the place or places like this could go. Now, if you pop up and you
get six license applications where these red dots are, then do we switch our game plan
from zoning to something else? Be it morality or be it anything else. But do you switch
it? One thing that you run the danger of in the court system is changing your own rules.
This is how a lot of voting rights cases and civil rights cases were won against
governments because they changed their rules in the middle of the game. I’m just saying,
to be honest with constituents, to be honest with people, what sounds good and what’s
popular and get a big clap from audience, that’s good for today. But the same audience
you’ve got to gather it back four to five to six different times, at some point the clock
rolls and the budget still rolls. We’ll have a new attorney come January. Jim may still be
handling this particular case. But to a point in a community I think there needs to be a
decision. If you going to say a certain type of business is going exist but you going to
control where it goes, then I think you need to do what gets you to where Andy’s talking
about, you either need to narrow that line of control, that needs to be there, you need to
say okay, once we’ve established that, once we’ve shared it with the public, that’s going
to be where we go. We don’t necessarily have to like it, but that’s where it’s going to go.
Or we can continue to say we’ll change the rules every time it comes up and we’ll
continuously fight it. Somewhere, gentlemen, along the line what has occurred in various
cities across America every day in terms of existence, at some point, at some point you
going to run out of changing rules and you also going to run out of money for paying
22
lawyers to a point to extract it and to change it every time you go along. Now I close,
Mr. Mayor, by saying that I didn’t, I didn’t, I didn’t bring this into play to be on a crusade
for the other side to do it, but I think you should share in honesty with the general public
[inaudible] that which is popular, but into the [inaudible] of reality. If we going to deal
with zoning, and I’ve said this for many years with zoning, carve out your areas where
it’s such that if it’s, if it’s, if it’s where there are adult establishments, if it’s areas in
which are controversial, or which in many cases the general public may say crosses the
line for morality, draw it, leave it there, and [inaudible] this is where it’s going to be. Or
you going to open the pocketbook and you’re going to wage an all-out war to say it’s just
not going to happen here. Now what happened there in those absolute communities in
the past [inaudible] that same attitude with a lot of cases that dealt like this, in the very
end after thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars, I can remember the same
case that the City waged and the old County waged against the United State Department
of Justice, after we spent a half million dollars with a Washington law firm. I went there
with Mr. Wall’s predecessor, [inaudible] sit down, didn’t even given us a lunch dinner,
they gave us a box lunch. I knew we were in trouble that day. And they gave us a box
lunch and a piece of food in it, a sandwich and a cookie, and they brought us there to tell
us after we had paid them all that money, ladies and gentlemen, we can’t help you any
more, we can’t win this case. At some point, we need to decide what’s our best
[inaudible], fight it from that position, and decide that’s where we’re going to be with it.
Because I think it’s unfair to continuously deal with the [inaudible] and [inaudible] a ray
of light and a ray of hope to a point that does not have a budgetary ending. It continues
to come back and if you said in public that you cannot deny the existence of it
somewhere, at some point, gentlemen, we need to define where somewhere is going to
be. And let that be. Or if you going to fight it forever, then just say we are going to fight
it forever. But to continuously do this is not going to work, because there are too many
red dots on there. And what I don’t feel like doing is, is casting a vote today to close it in
one place and then turn around and get applications for six others to a point where our
own law says that they can go tomorrow. And I think that’s what needs to be revealed, it
needs to be put on the table, and that’s not a crusade for them in any kind of way, but it’s
a point that I think that folk need to leave here understanding the point that we said under
our own zoning law where those places can exist. And I just wanted to share that and put
it in the record, Mr. Mayor, and I’m through with it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank, thank you, Mr. Mays. Anybody else care to be heard on this?
Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m personally, I’m going to
vote against it. The X-Mart. X-Mart giants are here, Goliath have already spoke, willing
to go 15 rounds. I’m going to be like David, I’m going 15 rounds with him because
[inaudible].
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hankerson: Going to fight it. Willing to fight it. I do want some clarification
on, on the federal constitution issue. I think that citizens need to know exactly what’s
23
going to happen. Mr. Mays made some very good points for clarity of what can happen.
But my faith is just a little bit strong, and know that with God, we can, we can win this
battle, and I’m willing to, as long as my pulse is pulsating, I’m willing to fight it all the
way. Because we do not want this kind of activity in our city. And I strongly speak
against that and I always will speak against it and do all I can to prevent it. So I’m
willing to go 15 rounds, Goliath, I got my slingshot, so I’m willing to go 15 rounds with
you, or even more if it’s possible. But Mr. Wall, what, the federal constitution issue, is
the next fight. We can close it today, we could vote to close it today on the business tax
certification, but then what? What is the timeframe? If we lose in the federal court, then,
then what? I think that clarity need to be made also.
Mr. Wall: Well, the, the constitutional challenges that Mr. Maddox has spoken
about would presumably be set down for a hearing in some fashion before the District
Court. And at this point, no motion has been filed with the Court seeking any further
action. And the Court on its own perhaps might schedule a hearing.
Mr. Maddox: That motion will be filed.
Mr. Mayor: Please don’t interrupt our Attorney. He’s advising members of the
Commission.
Mr. Maddox: I’m sorry.
Mr. Wall: And so it’s difficult to know what the time frame will be insofar as a
decision dealing with the constitutional challenges. Keep in mind, however, that we did
draft a new ordinance which the Commission has approved which addresses the
constitutional challenges that were filed insofar as the first ordinance is concerned, and
you know, you never are certain insofar as any constitutional challenge whether or not
you have closed all the loopholes, etc., but we believe that we have. In addition to that,
we have made, put a severability clause in the ordinance so that, you know, one provision
may be deficient in some respect, but you still have severability. That’s not to suggest
that any of them we believe the claims have any merit to their constitutional challenges.
And so I mean as far as the issue of the constitutionality, it could be three months, it
could be nine months, or a year. It’s hard to tell exactly what kind of time frame it would
be. And you know, I think that again, they have got to at some point apply for an adult
entertainment permit, which they’ve not done. And it’s kind of ironic in a sense that they
are up here relying on provisions of an adult entertainment ordinance and the revocation
procedures of that permit which they’ve never applied for, don’t have and refuse to even
apply for. So I urge the Commission to enforce the ordinances that you’ve adopted. The
locations that have been identified on the map, yes, they’re permissible insofar as
building locations are concerned. But it may very well cost the plaintiff a considerable
amount of money to build an adult entertainment establishment out in the middle of
Warren Lake, for instance. I mean that’s one of the spots, red dots that’s on that map.
They can build it there. It might cost them more than it’s financially feasible for them to
do. And so a lot of the locations, you know, they have the right to go there, but whether
or not they choose to go there is another matter.
24
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Excuse me, [inaudible]?
Mr. Hankerson:
Yes, sir, I just want to thank you for that information. The
I do want to put in the form of a motion that we revoke this
reason I asked it, because
business tax certificate.
That’s what we need to do, right, I’d like to put that in the
form of a motion.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to that motion. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: That was it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, anyone else care to be heard? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Regarding the maps, the numbers by the
little areas, is that some key to where the areas are? What, what is --
Mr. Wall: It’s tied to an affidavit that Mr. Patty filed in Federal Court. And he
describes those in a narrative fashion.
Mr. Shepard: So number one, for example, is what?
Mr. Wall: Number one is the Bobby Jones Expressway at Scott Nixon Memorial
Drive, and it’s currently occupied by the Pepsi Cola bottling plant. They could buy the
Pepsi Cola bottling plant and locate an adult video there.
Mr. Shepard: And that form of zoning is industrial?
Mr. Wall: It’s industrial.
Mr. Shepard: And similarly, the others would be industrial, like two is probably
the Franke Industrial Park?
Mr. Wall: It’s owned by a trucking company.
Mr. Shepard: Okay.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] sand, it’s a sand pit, and they could locate one in the sand
pit.
Mr. Shepard: And the failure of the, of the business tax certificate here is not
having an adult entertainment license?
Mr. Wall: Permit. Correct.
25
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to ask the Attorney a question.
I’m not in favor, I did not think that they would even get started in the beginning and they
survived for a year where they are. But Jim, you just read, number one was the old Pepsi
Cola bottling company and plant. Are you saying that they have to buy that complete
area or can they go next door to that or do they -- I mean I don’t understand. When you
say industrial area, and if the Pepsi Cola property really would be too big and they went
next door to that and bought an acre of land, could they do that?
Mr. Wall: It has to be that particular --
Mr. Williams: Has to be those particular spots?
Mr. Wall: -- parcels that have been identified to meet those criteria.
Mr. Williams: I see Paul [inaudible] and I don’t see George, but Paul, can you
answer is any of these numbers, cause the map doesn’t show me very much, but are any
of these numbers in a residential area where it might affect the neighborhoods of -- I
mean we know it’s not feasible to go where the Pepsi Cola plant is, so they going to go in
the next feasible position, so is any of these areas in a residential area that’s going to be,
be affected with any, any of our communities? Or all these just industrial, like the Pepsi
Cola plant?
Mr. Speaker: I’ve very -- Mr. Williams, I’ve very limited personal knowledge of
the map. Mr. Patty put it together. But I am assuming that all of the colored areas are
currently zoned Light or Heavy Industrial. And as far as -- at this scale it’s hard for me to
answer whether or not -- I mean I could probably say that a couple of them might be near,
a couple or three of them might be near residential areas, but until you go down to the
actual tax parcel at a much larger scale than what we have here, it’s hard to answer that
question definitively.
Mr. Williams: And, and, and, and, and that helps me a lot, Paul. I just, because
looking at this I cannot determine whether or not it’s going next to a residential area
somewhere. I know several areas where it’s, it’s classified Industrial, that is next to a
residential area.
Mr. Speaker: Uh-huh [yes].
Mr. Williams: I certainly don’t want it in District 2. I’ve got all the junkyards
that’s in Augusta, that’s in my District. And we, we, we battling and dealing with enough
of that. But my point is if they can go from where they are to a residential area, I
certainly would like to know where those areas were before the decision be made.
26
Mr. Speaker: I understand. You’d like to see something at a larger scale, even
the map we showed earlier is a little bit too small.
Mr. Williams: Exactly.
Mr. Wall: I had furnished to you a narrative that was a part of George Patty’s
affidavit that describes in detail the various sites. And you talk about -- I’ll be glad to
address any particular site that you may have and read the narrative description, but none
of these, reading over this, appear to be in any neighborhood. These are all commercial
establishments for the most part or adjacent to commercial establishment -- industrial
establishment that are already in business.
Mr. Williams: Well, Jim --
Mr. Wall: Either a trucking company or a chemical company or Carole Fabrics
property or properties that are industrial.
Mr. Williams: I’m going to say again, I mean I’m not in support, I’m not here to
wave a flag for, for the business at all, but I do remember talking to George Patty, who
said that we need to really look at what we, you know, what location and what probable
location it could go to versus where they are now, and that raised some concern with me.
It’s bad enough to have them there, but to put them in a closer proximity to the
community would be, be even worse. So I just needed to know what areas or what
communities were close, adjacent to the most likely place.
Mr. Wall: Keep in mind that, that that issue about where businesses may
ultimately be able to be located is a separate issue than the revocation of this business tax
certificate. We have an ordinance on the books that requires them to get a, an adult
entertainment permit. They do not have one. And that is the narrow issue, the simple
issue that has to be addressed. And I urge the Commission to address that issue, which is
the motion that’s on the floor. These other issues about where they might go and do we
want them here and do we want them there is a decision for another day, and I submit
that we have looked at those issues, we’ve looked at the neighborhood issues, we’ve
looked at all of those insofar as crafting the ordinance that you have already adopted.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, let me ask Mr. Wall a question. You mentioned specifically
about Pepsi Cola bottling company in that one. In terms of whether or not they would
buy that. And I don’t know where folks in this business would buy. It’s immaterial to, to
me about their makeup and what they have. But now, I’ve found it interesting -- I did not
27
get all of the locations that I can remember, but just on one instance, the, the story that --
and not to deal with one specific reporter -- but the story that was done by George Eskola
on “Somewhere Out There” and went out on site to some of these locations, now there
was some sites there other than Pepsi Cola bottling company area. There were some sites
that even called to the attention to the fact that one was even closer to the airport entrance
way than of which we’re talking about dealing with this one that was on the corridor.
And, and, and those are types that concern me. I mean you may say this is another issue
for another day, but it’s also another issue and another dollar for another day. Now if I’m
going fight and even if you’re going to base it totally to the point of where you’re going
to stand on a moral ground to do it, I also want some semblance to a point that my moral
sight is not going to end up withering at the point because I don’t have a legal leg to stand
on. Because I think at some point then you’ve got to respect and deal with that. The
other one being, not just the airport corridor, what about the one on Gordon Highway by
the Holiday Inn and that entrance across in that area? Now you talk about what’s near
residential. Let’s look at this site, for instance. The closest residential area that you’ve
got and probably not that many people are in here today from the closest residential area,
but when you talk about the issue itself, it concerns folk period, regardless of where they
may live. The closest residential area that you’ve got, [inaudible] Park, Virginia
Subdivision areas that are right by that. There are many instances of industrial
development that are still zoned in this city, particularly the old city, particularly in low-
to-moderate, for the lack of a better word, poorer neighborhoods in this city, that still
have industrial zoning right adjacent to where you’ve got residential. And I think this
still gets back to what Andy is talking about in here. I think you’re leaving a very wide
area open to a point that where yes, you, you win an issue on one situation today, but this
is a loophole that I told you privately and I’ve said it publicly that I think could have been
closed a year or two ago to prevent, save money, and deal with this fight of where you’re
going with it. So I don’t think you ought to lead folk to a point of just saying if they got
money to buy the Pepsi Cola bottling company. There is some clear land and you and I
have discussed this. We’ve discussed it in legal. And I’m going to say it because I don’t
have a secret about what I say behind that door or what I say in this one. And I made the
statement then that on clear land and those industrial area, folk can stick a Butler building
up, put lights around it and a sign and make it into a doggone nightclub, very quickly, on
grass land. And so there are those areas which are there. They are not all zoned to deal
with existing buildings. And I think you just need to be fair in terms of the exposure that
which you say. The last thing that I’m going to say about it is this. I hope that if you’re
going to go in terms of where Rev. Hankerson had made mention today in this situation,
I’m, I’m hoping that you’re going to take some help. Now Commissioner Shepard and I
particularly attended a conference of National League of Cities over a year ago, and we
sat in, on a similar problem that cities across America were having with adult
entertainment. I would hope that if we going to stay in this for a 15-round fight, and this
is no, this is no put-down on how we are being represented legally, but I hope whether
it’s current legal representation -- if you continue the case -- or if it’s new legal
representation that has the case, I would hope that you would take seriously those firms
that have worked in areas that have put together progressive legislation that has been
preventive, that has been Court tested, and what they are working on as opposed to
continuously coming back to deal with this issue over and over. There are folks there
28
that wanted to come to talk to us basically on the first round for free. Well, we wasn’t
necessarily interested in hearing that. That was just something y’all learned on one of
those trips. Let me tall you what. This is an American problem and to a point that cities
across this nation are having to deal with this and how they can best either rid or control
within their given communities. And I think if you are going to fight a fight, then you
ought to fight it from a position of strength. You should not fight it from a position of
reaction or fight it from weakness and try and change a law every time you get beat
down. And that’s where we’ve been going with this fight, in my opinion, over the point
of the last several years.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to concur with my colleague
th
from the 5 District. I’m looking forward to going 15 rounds. And Mr. Mayor, I’d like
to call the question on this issue as we have it on the agenda.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let me just make sure that there is nobody else that wants to
be heard before we do that. We’ll go ahead with the vote then.
Mr. Maddox: Mr. Mayor, may I be heard one last time?
Mr. Mayor: Do you have some new information for us?
Mr. Maddox: Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Mayor: And what would that be?
Mr. Maddox: We cannot pretend to be moral on hypocritical grounds. Now that
argument about my clients did not get an adult entertainment license was made and
rejected by Judge Bowen. Because the reason they didn’t get an adult entertainment
license is that you folks wouldn’t approve their location, the zoning. That’s what the case
was about all along. It is a fact my clients are making so much money in Richmond
County that they will, if there are areas that are both -- they have to be both in
compliance and available -- Mr. Wall makes a mistake in saying oh, it’s out in the middle
of the lake -- those things go out of the way and you have only two choices folks. I’ve
been here and --
Mr. Mayor: I’m not going to let you do a summation. If you have some new
information. Cause the question’s been called.
Mr. Maddox: I’m sorry. I’ve got two more sentences, I used to tell judges that.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Maddox: You’ve got two choices. There will be a place in Richmond
County that you set aside where these businesses can locate, or the judge will through out
29
your entire scheme because they aren’t really available and they can locate anywhere in
the county. Those are your choices.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I’m personally convinced y’all would set up if you could find a
spider hole somewhere, that y’all are going to be here.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to move ahead with the vote. All, all in favor of the
motion from Commissioner Hankerson, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Mays votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mays: let that be recorded Madame Clerk, as I’m not satisfied with the
direction that we are taking involving this whole set of issues. And for that reason only.
The Clerk: Okay. That motion carries with Mr. Mays not voting and Mr. Beard
out.
Mr. Mays: I voted No.
The Clerk: You voted No?
Mr. Mays: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: You didn’t light up on there.
Mr. Mays: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Push it again, Mr. Mays, let’s make sure it’s working.
The Clerk: Okay, Mr. Mays voting No.
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we request of Zoning
and Planning a review of items, areas 1 through 19 on this map for conformance to
the reversionary clause of our existing zoning and planning ordinance to see if any
of these sites would qualify for down zoning back to their original zoning in
accordance with that section of our code.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
30
Mr. Mayor: Second to that motion. Any discussion on the motion? Mr.
Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, well, for example, something that [inaudible] in that
zone would not now be subject to reversion; is that correct?
Mr. Cheek: The code reads if there have been no site plans or development plans
submitted within 18 months of the initial rezoning then it is subject to be reverted back to
its previous zoning.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m, I’m, I’m going to jump on Mr. Wall’s side for just a
second. He and I had those friendly debates over the last 15 years. I would like to allow
him -- I think Andy’s motion is good and I’ve said before I’d support it -- I would like to
allow the Attorney, though, an opportunity since we are in litigation, before you start to
down zoning to do, so that he gets the chance to set the course of his case regarding
where you’re going with the down zoning, and to give this Commission that part of legal
advice on it, if nothing else past the portion of legal for this afternoon.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you want to comment?
Mr. Mays: Just a comment.
Mr. Wall: Well --
Mr. Mayor: Will it mess up your case to do that?
Mr. Wall: I think that the motion, the motion at this point is for Planning and
Zoning to look at, and I think that -- I don’t have a problem with that motion, you know.
As far as what action we may ultimately take, that may be something that we need to
discuss in legal, but as far as the motion to look at, I don’t have any objection to that.
Mr. Mays: I just didn’t want him to handcuff himself.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Anything further?
Mr. Mays: And definitely not handcuff us if he’s fixing to leave us.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor --
Mr. Cheek: Can we get that, just a window put on that and come back with
a report within 30 days?
31
Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. [inaudible] here? 30 days? Mr. Paul?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Planning says 30 days. All in favor of the motion then
please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, the Chair will declare a brief recess while we clear the
chamber. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
(Recess)
Mr. Mayor: We will resume our meeting. Please come to your seats. We’re
ready to reconvene. We have people in the chamber who are waiting for us to address
their agenda items. We’d like to move along, please. Madame Clerk, let’s call item
number 3.
The Clerk:
3. Z-03-99 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that parking be located in the
side yard; no parking shall face Peach Orchard Road; a petition by John Glenn
requesting change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone P-1
(Professional) with a Special Exception for residential purposes per Section 20-2 (b)
of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 3418 Peach Orchard Road and containing .57 acres. (Tax Map
133-1 Parcel 54) DISTRICT 6
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, you asked this to be pulled.
Mr. Cheek: Just two questions, one, I guess, contingent upon the other. This is
the property with the six foot privacy fence around its entire perimeter?
Mr. Speaker: That’s correct.
Mr. Cheek: How in the world were they allowed to put a privacy fence around
that entire property when everybody else is prohibited from putting one in their front
yard?
Mr. Speaker: Unless something has changed, and this is something handled by
License & Inspection as opposed to us, I don’t believe that a permit for a privacy fence
requires a permit. I mean --
32
Mr. Cheek: Well, it requires according to the code section that it be 4’ high and
then you’re able to see through it.
Mr. Speaker: Right.
Mr. Cheek: Well, that’s 6’.
Mr. Speaker: If there’s a violation then we could certainly make License &
Inspection aware of that and [inaudible] enforce it.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this is one issue, one that’s been brought up by the
citizens in that area on numbers of occasions and never been resolved by the staff of this
government, so I’d like to request formally that that be handled. And two, what business
are they looking at placing there?
Mr. Speaker: They are office use only, for a title pawn business, with no, no
location of any, you know, if they repossess a vehicle, for instance, it’s not going to be
located on that property.
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] cars.
Mr. Speaker: The applicant is going to live there and have essentially an office
for it.
Mr. Cheek: It’s basically an unlicensed car dealership now. They’re selling cars.
They pull the panels off the front of that fence and sell cars there.
Mr. Speaker: Do they?
Mr. Cheek
: Now, yes. I’ve got a problem with this type of business there, and
I make a motion that we defer this to the next meeting until we get a
Mr. Mayor,
resolution on the fence before we proceed with voting on this.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is the Inspection Department here?
Anybody from Rob’s office?
Mr. Colclough: Rob is standing over there.
Mr. Mayor: Rob, there’s a question from the Commissioner with respect to the
privacy fence at 3418 Peach Orchard Road.
Mr. Speaker: It’s a corner lot.
33
Mr. Cheek: It’s a corner lot with a 6’ privacy fence that citizens have been
complaining about for some time, and for some reason we’ve allowed that when we don’t
allow it anywhere else in the City.
Mr. Speaker: If I’m not mistaken, ask Mr. Bridges, is this the property where
they sold use cars?
Mr. Bridges: Yes, they’ve been doing that for years.
Mr. Speaker: If I’m not mistaken, I believe they went to the Appeals Board and
got a variance to put up a fence that high, that the reason for asking for it was the people
on Peach Orchard Road were throwing beer bottles up in the yard.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman, could you verify that? Mr. Cheek has made a motion
that we defer this to the next Commission meeting, and if you could have a report on that
for him at the next meeting, and if that is not the case, if you could proceed to make sure
that they bring their privacy fence into conformity?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if I may.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: Beer bottles thrown at cars is awful thin. I think everybody in the
City that, that has been turned down could use that same excuse. This, this property has
been, skated the rules for a while. I don’t mind them going and putting in a professional
business. I think that entire corridor is going to go that way eventually, but the allowance
of that fence, one, is an eyesore, two, it’s in violation if there’s no exemption, and three,
with that covering up for title pawn or anything else, I think that that, if we have
businesses, honest and open businesses need to have an open front yard and an open front
to them when they have vehicles and other stuff parked there. And I have very deep
concerns about this fortress that is on that corner, opening a business and title pawn with
that fence around it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I just want to ask a question, though, and I guess, Rob, I need a
person can answer this, but the fence won’t stop them from throwing bottles over, if that
was the reason for that. The people would still probably throw them over, Rob, if that, if
that’s the case. In fact, that be even more reason to throw them over. You couldn’t see
them when they went over. So --
Mr. Speaker: And I’m only saying that because I think that’s the reason why I
heard it was approved. [inaudible] if I have the right property in mind. I’ll check on that.
Mr. Colclough: You’ve got the right property.
34
Mr. Cheek: If there is an exemption, can we get the documentation that, that
explains why it was exempted and they were granted that? It’s just an awful thin case,
knowing that we’ve turned down so many other people with much more legitimate
reasons to have that type of fence in their front yard in favor of this one.
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Would the petitioner like to be heard?
Mr. Speaker: I don’t see him here.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, no response. All right, we have a motion to defer this to our
next meeting. Further discussion? All in favor of that motion, please vote in the
affirmative.
Mr. Shepard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item that we pulled was item number 28.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, that was mine.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s let the Clerk read the caption.
Mr. Colclough: All right.
The Clerk:
28.Motion to approve the renewal of the current agreement with Hilb, Rogal
and Hamilton for 6 months to allow time to complete the development of an RFP
and go through the necessary processes to select a service provider. (Approved by
Finance Committee December 8, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Number 1, provider for what? If you look at the backup, it says
this contract is automatically renewed every two years. That means -- [inaudible] some
clarification -- every two years they don’t have to come back here but it automatically
renews itself? Whose item is this?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: I’m going to ask Mr. Persaud to respond to this; however, it’s my
understanding that we have a third party administrator for our workers comp program,
and the -- because there is so much history and cases open, etc., that contract renews
unless we want to reopen it and obtain another third party administrator.
Mr. Colclough: So every two years this thing automatically renew itself?
35
Mr. Persaud: Yes.
Mr. Colclough: Without coming back here?
Mr. Persaud: No, it comes back here. Has been coming back.
Mr. Colclough: But if it automatically renew itself, why would it have to come
back here? That’s what it says here in the backup. Automatically renew itself every two
years.
Mr. Kolb: If for some reason the Commission wants to not renew the contract,
you have an opportunity to do it, but if you don’t want it to come back --
Mr. Colclough: No, that’s not what I’m asking.
Mr. Kolb: Okay.
Mr. Colclough: I’m asking if -- you’re saying it comes back to us every two years
anyway, if we want to renew it, but the way it reads here it won’t come back to us, it will
just continue to go on and on and on.
Mr. Kolb: No.
Mr. Persaud: [inaudible] every two years the Commission approves a [inaudible]
comes back to this board.
Mr. Kolb: Yes.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] two conflicting statements.
Mr. Mayor: All we’re approving today is the six months --
Mr. Persaud: Six months, right.
Mr. Colclough: Six months and it will have to come back here anyway?
Mr. Persaud: That’s correct.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] RFP [inaudible]?
Mr. Persaud: And come back with a recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: Since we already have coverage with them, we want to extend this
contract six months while our people put together the RFP --
36
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: -- to bid this contract competitively.
Mr. Persaud: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: And it will take six months to do it.
Mr. Colclough: But that time we’ll have the opportunity to do it.
Mr. Kolb: Right. In other words, you’re renewing this contract not for two years
but only for six months.
Mr. ColcloughI so move, Mr. Mayor.
: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, further discussion? All in favor, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Shepard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, item number 37.
The Clerk:
37. Motion to receive as information a list of emission control reduction
strategies that the City of Augusta will undertake as part of its commitment to
achieve cleaner air in the city and region. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee December 8, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, you asked for this item.
Mr. Cheek: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. After I had this pulled, I reviewed the
list and the strategies and they are reasonable. My question on this one is it was apparent
that for whatever reason an acceptable level of communication between industry,
Chamber of Commerce and the government, I guess all of the elements were in place, but
that level of communication, based on what I heard, was somewhat lacking. Are we all
on the same page? Does industry know what the City is doing, does the City know what
industry is doing, does the Chamber know what everybody’s doing?
Mr. Speaker: Obviously, we’re going to wait until today’s action was through to,
to make, make this list formally available to our industry reps, but the Chamber of
Commerce has, has had this list for at least a couple of weeks, if not more. They’ve had
37
an opportunity to comment on it. We, we do want to get some additional input, not only
from our industry partners, but also from the State Environmental Protection Division as
well. And again, we’re only waiting until after this body had acted to take that action.
So we fully expect to -- [inaudible] cooperate effort with, with all parties to this point and
will continue to be.
Mr. Cheek: Well, that’s the thing that concerns me, is again, I don’t think it’s a
case where people aren’t working hard and doing their job. I think that when I’m
surrounded by 20 of our largest industries and they’re telling me that they don’t know
what the City’s doing and would like to be included in the loop [inaudible] is, I guess my,
my point is the way we’ve done it in the past --
Mr. Speaker: Right.
Mr. Cheek: -- is not the way we need to do it in the future.
Mr. Speaker: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: And are, are we treating them truly as partners, all of us getting in the
same room, rubbing elbows and talking through this thing to present a unified front to the
EPA and EPD --
Mr. Speaker: Right.
Mr. Cheek: -- on this?
Mr. Speaker: Well, that will certainly be our intention.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I may respond. There are actually two committees that
we participate on, both of them through the Chamber. One is the higher-level executive
committee where we meet periodically, and the other committee is the actual work group.
And we have representatives on both committees. We meet every time they meet and we
participate in the discussions. So I believe that there is a lot of communication going on
between the three sectors of the community that are engaged in this process.
Mr. Cheek: That’s got to be -- like I said, Mr. Mayor, I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Cheek:
Like I said, this is, this is roughly a third to nearly a half of our
economy in these plants. When I have the air quality managers, conformance guys, sit
down with me who are doing the work for several different plants, who are developing
their documentation for compliance in planning and they don’t know what the City’s
doing, they don’t know what the Chamber’s doing, that is not good communication. And
whether we, whether hand-holding is required or whatever, my concern is that all of this
hard work be brought together and that we all play from the same sheet of music, and that
38
is not what has happened in the past to date. And I just hope that we can improve upon
And with that, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a
that and will seek to improve upon that.
motion to approve.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There’s been a second. The Chair would observe that, that the
argument has been since the initial discussions about air quality that our problem is not a
transportation problem but an industrial problem. And when you look at this list of
items, these are all related, most of them are related to transportation issues. And there’s
no opportunity for the City to use its regulatory authority to address any of the
commercial or industrial issues beyond enforcing existing restrictions on outdoor
burning. And I’d like to know why, why that was omitted from strategic [inaudible].
Mr. Speaker: You mean industrial controls?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Controls by industries themselves?
Mr. Mayor: For us to use any regulatory authority that we have to influence the
industrial and commercial sectors, where the majority of the problem is coming from.
Mr. Speaker: Right. Well, we essentially worked from a master list of, of
suggested control strategies that, that was provided by the Environmental Protection
Division, and just speaking off the top of my head I don’t think there was any specific
item related to direct regulatory controls by the, you know, by any participating city on,
on industry. And we really wanted to do -- and approach this whole effort initially in a,
you know, at a baseline, in a cooperative mode and suggest the kinds of emission
reduction strategies that the City could take and knowing as we met with the industry
representatives on their committee, we know they are proposing a set of, set of actions
on their part, so we knew that they [inaudible] doing some things themselves.
Mr. Mayor: Could that set of actions be shared with this Commission?
Mr. Speaker: It sure can.
Mr. Mayor: Can you get a copy of that?
Mr. Speaker: Uh-huh [yes].
Mr. Mayor: Cause I’d be interested to see what the private sector is doing.
Mr. Speaker: Right.
39
Mr. Mayor: Because of what we’re doing in the public -- Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, the private section in Augusta has, if I’m not mistaken,
and this is ball park, is sought and achieved a 30% net reduction in their emissions,
qualified emissions, with the retooling of the [inaudible] Plant across the river, one of the
major contributors to some of the offending pollutants, being completed. Industry has
done a very diligent job in trying to reduce their emissions. They’ve gone back and are
looking for an additional 5% aggregate across the board to reduce their emissions. We
did have somewhat of this report at Engineering Services from industry. They, they have
communicated they would be happy to come discuss their entire plan with us. I do
caution, though, that this City not embark upon a course of enforcing additional
regulatory controls on industry. They’re already under enough pressure to go to Mexico
and other places. The EPA is doing that. The State Department of Natural Resources is
doing that under clean water and clean air. Working with these folks is one way we
continue to attract growth at existing businesses. Being friendly to them will have up
attract other businesses to this area. We really need to, we can spend millions to go out
and try to attract business but we can spend a lot less than that trying to keep the business
we’ve got, and I hope that that’s what we’re going to focus on. But I assure you they
have taken this very seriously and are looking to the next round of compliance levels for
clean air, to be ready when those guidelines come into place, not waiting until after
they’re in place to implement changes.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We had a motion to approve; is that correct?
Okay, all in favor of the motion then please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next is item number 41.
The Clerk:
41. Motion to approve exceptions to the fleet vehicle policy for emergency on-call
personnel in the Traffic Engineering Section residing within five miles of the
Augusta Richmond County line. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
December 8, 2003)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
50.Motion to approve exceptions to the fleet vehicle policy for emergency
on-call personnel in the Traffic Engineering Section residing within five
miles of the Augusta Richmond County line. (No recommendation from
Administrative Services Committee December 8, 2003)
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
40
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams, you asked this to be pulled?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I want to make a substitute motion that we
deny.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: Along with that substitute motion there is that we have already set
a precedent, I guess you could say, to try to bring in some of these vehicles carried home.
And this is not a regular or a frequent, I would say, emergency that happens. We got
more police cars than any city our size. To prove that, you know, just look at First Friday
and how we blocked off all the streets at 11 o’clock at night, which is probably the most
busiest time on a Friday night, but, but if we can’t have an officer to stay there while
someone comes in to, to get an automobile or to get a truck to go back and do their job,
then I think we, we, we, we are really being poor stewards or poor managers. These
vehicles, if they are taken home, they have got to be driven everywhere that employee
goes. You can’t tell me this employee going to take this vehicle home and park it and use
his personal car during the time he’s supposed to be on call, then go back home and get
that truck to come down to see about it. I have seen a great -- haven’t seen any report on
it, Mr. Mayor, but I just think we being wasteful of taxpayers’ money. We got some
people who making the situation like this, which may be necessary, but other people who
abuse this privilege and made it, in my mind, to not be feasible to let these employees
take these cars home. We hired people outside of Augusta area, when we hired those
people they know where they was working at, they should know what their job
requirement was, if they got to come back, they should have been willing to and
understand they need to drive their own vehicle. I can’t support it, and if I don’t get a
second to my motion I understand that, too, but I still can’t support it and I vote against it.
Mr. Hankerson: I second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anyone else care to be heard on this? Mr. Boyles, did you
want to say something?
Mr. Boyles: [inaudible] second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion to deny items 41 and the
companion item number 50. We’ll take up the substitute motion first. All in favor of the
motion to deny, please vote in the affirmative.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion fails 5-4.
41
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion, which is the motion to
approve. Discussion on that? Any questions? All in favor of that motion, please vote
aye. It’s to approve the policy. Mr. Mays, did you push a button? [inaudible] light.
The Clerk: Is that the no button, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk: Okay.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion fails 4-5.
Mr. Mayor: That’s a no action item.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, item number 47 is the next one.
The Clerk:
47. Motion to approve the appointment of the following representing District 3.
Canal Authority – Thomas H. Robertson
Augusta Ports Authority – Richard Toole
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked this to be pulled?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I did. In all respect to my colleague, Mr.
Shepard, who is, has the right to make these appointments, but I had a question about
both of the appointment on the Canal Authority and the Port Authority. Mr. Robertson
and Mr. Toole, my questions is, I guess to anyone who can answer this question, is these
parties or these firms doing business in that same frame, in that same vein? And if they
are, I got a serious issue with this cause I think that’s a conflict. If they are not doing
business, I can understand, but I guess Jim will be the man who probably could tell us,
give us a legal opinion on that.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s find out if they’re doing business first. Could Ms. Smith
respond to that [inaudible] engineering firms? Is Mr. Robertson’s firm doing any work
with respect to the Canal, Ms. Smith? And Mr. Toole’s firm doing any business with
respect to the City Marina and [inaudible]?
Mr. Wall: Mr. Robertson is certainly doing some work in connection with the
canal is concerned, I mean the Atlanta Gas Light project insofar as the remediation of that
is concerned, I mean he is certainly involved as far as looking at that [inaudible].
42
Mr. Williams: That’s a yes, Jim. What about the other one now?
Mr. Wall: I don’t know of any engineering work that’s going with them.
Mr. Williams: Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith: I’m not familiar with any engineering work that the Ports Authority
has that’s underway.
Mr. Williams: Familiar? Is there any work being done by this [inaudible]? I
don’t care whether you’re familiar, Ms. Smith, I want to know by somebody whether
they doing work. I mean it could be, work could be done you not familiar with. I need to
know are they doing work or not? I mean it just --
Mr. Mayor: You need to ask somebody [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: Somebody who getting paid more than I’m getting paid ought to
know it.
Ms. Smith: There is no engineering work that’s being managed by Public Works
for the Augusta Ports Authority, and no work that is coming through the 1% sales tax
program that that Ports Authority has that’s underway.
Mr. Kolb: To the best of our knowledge, there is no work being done at the Ports
Authority.
Mr. Williams: To the best of your knowledge? I tell you what.
Mr. Mayor: I think that’s the best answer you’re going to get today.
Mr. Williams: Well, [inaudible] Mr. Mayor, but that’s not a good answer. I mean
with the money these people make, somebody ought to know yes, point blank, or no.
Steve --
Mr. Shepard: I was going to ask the Mayor for permission to respond, Mr.
Williams.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
rd
Mr. Shepard: And here again, these are, these are the serving 3 District
representatives who have been there. I didn’t trace them back, but they’ve been serving
there, Marion. And I, if there is no issue whatsoever as to -- there’s no work being done
at the Ports Authority, I’ll certainly inquire by asking those appointees. I don’t mind --
43
Mr. Williams: Can we postpone this, can we postpone this?
Mr. Shepard: I don’t see any reason to postpone Mr. Toole. Said there was none
there.
Mr. Williams: No, to the best of their knowledge was the answer, Mr. Shepard,
and --
Mr. Shepard: I know, and I’m going to ask them between now and next meeting
Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: So then if there is, we can bring this back, is that what you’re
saying? I have no problem doing that. If that’s the case --
Mr. Shepard: I’m saying Mr. Toole doesn’t have any. Mr. Robertson is the only
one I identified having an affirmative answer. Isn’t that correct, didn’t you say Mr.
Robertson is working with the Canal? That’s what I understood. So I would hold Mr.
Robertson but I don’t see any reason not to consider Mr. Toole.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I can, I can agree, Mr. Shepard, with that.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s ask one more question. The other part of your question, Mr.
Williams, to the Attorney was is that a conflict of interest for Mr. Robertson to sit on this
board and do business and I don’t think we have that part of the question answered.
Mr. Wall: Well, I don’t see it as being a conflict of interest at all because the
Canal is obviously an integral part of the City. And I certainly, insofar as the work that
he is doing insofar as the Canal remediation is concerned in my mind is a benefit that he
is not only looking after the City’s interest but is also looking after the Canal interest
because that’s a vital part of the City. So I don’t see a conflict.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m not questioning at all the type work or the work
he’s doing and whether it’s professional or what his, the value is to that work. I mean my
question is, and if that’s fine, if that’s what the ruling is from the Attorney that it’s not,
then I got no problem with anybody sitting on the board doing work the same way.
Commissioner Kuhlke had asked, Commissioner Hankerson had got on the agenda about
Commissioner Kuhlke to stay on the board he, he’s on right now. And if that’s not a
conflict, I got no problem with that. But I wouldn’t support that if there a conflict. So
Jim, if your ruling is saying that is not conflict, that’s fine.
Mr. Wall: I don’t see it as a conflict.
Mr. Williams: You don’t see it as a conflict, but --
Mr. Wall: It is not a conflict.
44
Mr. Williams: Okay, well.
Mr. Shepard: Then you withdraw your request for me to hold both of them then?
Mr. Williams: Yeah, I withdraw it if, if, if, it it’s not a conflict. But now if it
comes back, I want the Attorney, I want the record to reflect what the Attorney told us,
cause we go by what we pay him to, for the legal services.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I know both of these individuals and they’re both first
class guys. My question on conflict, though, is in any authority or on this board, we
passed a rule a couple of years ago that employees of this government could not be
employed by companies that they had work ongoing to develop contracts and different
things for business with the City, and we prohibited that activity. My concern is that
anybody that sits on a board, whether it’s these guys or anybody else, if they sit on a
board and then have their company coming before that board to do business with the
City, that is an unfair advantage for that particular business due to the inside knowledge
that they would have being on the board, plus the friendly relations they would have with
other board members. And I would believe that if that is the case, where contracts are
going to either one of these firms from either of these boards that they sit on, that is
indeed a conflict of interest anywhere but Augusta, and --
Mr. Wall: I agree with you insofar as doing work with the Canal Authority.
Mr. Cheek: Right.
Mr. Wall: But their contract is with the City, not with the Canal Authority.
Mr. Cheek: Well, in -- all of that aside, the question is, is, there a separation of
church and state here, if you will, from people on boards and then their business entities
doing business with those same boards they sit on. As long as that separation is there, I
don’t have a problem with it.
Mr. Wall: He’s not doing business with the Canal Authority.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Wall: He’s doing business with the City insofar as the remediation of the
Canal, which is owned by the City.
Mr. Cheek: Well, I mean, but there are no other design or anything else -- I
guess, in this case, like I said, these are two first class individuals and I hate this came up
under, under their names, but my main concern is that we don’t penalize other businesses
by having an atmosphere where people sitting on boards can bid for and get jobs over --
45
on the boards that they’re overseeing. If that’s not the case with either one of these guys,
I fully support both of them.
Mr. Mayor: All right, is there anything further?
Mr. Colclough: I just have one question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Do we, do we supply any money to the Canal Authority, Jim?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: So that means that the Canal Authority and the City is part of
one?
Mr. Wall: Are what?
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] one that we’re supplying them with funds?
Mr. Wall: We have assigned the revenue from the mills insofar as the use of the
water to the Canal Authority, and so they get that money that otherwise would come to
the City and that’s been assigned to the Canal Authority.
Mr. Colclough: So isn’t that -- that’s not a separate entity, it’s an authority under
the City?
Mr. Wall: The Authority is a completely separate legal entity.
Mr. Colclough: So they, they are getting no monies from the City in terms of
running the Authority?
Mr. Wall: The employees of the Canal Authority are by contract on the City
payroll and they reimburse us the full cost of that.
Mr. Colclough: So Augusta does not supply the Canal Authority with no funds, is
that what I’m hearing?
Mr. Wall: Other than the assignment of the revenue from the mills.
Mr. Colclough: So they are getting money.
Mr. Wall: They are getting that money. Absolutely.
Mr. Colclough: So how can you say that the [inaudible] the Authority [inaudible]
money from the City?
46
Mr. Wall: Well, the contract that they have insofar as the hydraulic plant for the
Canal is a project that was done for the public works and the remediation of, that it being
done and the supervision of that work is, is a Public Works project to improve the canal.
Now it also has [inaudible] benefit, no question about that, to the Canal Authority itself
because you’re implementing the canal master plan insofar as the [inaudible] of that. But
those decisions, you know, are in essence a joint decision because it’s a City asset. We
own the Canal.
Mr. Colclough: That’s what I’m thinking.
Mr. Wall: And they manage it.
Mr. Colclough: But you’re saying that it’s not a conflict, that the person that sits
on the board and makes decisions, because it’s a separate entity, that’s [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: Mr. Robertson should not --
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Wall: Okay. Well, I do not see it as being a conflict insofar as his having a
contract to, to do a Public Works contract for the City that involves the canal even though
he is a member of the Canal Authority. Because again, this is a project that a county
employed individual -- the Canal Authority could not employ him to do it.
Mr. Colclough: Do we appoint to the Canal Authority?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, that’s what we’re doing. Anything further? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, let me, let me say this, and this is, this is, this
Steven’s appointment to make. General -- and it’s ours to approve. But generally what
we’ve done, and I think probably, in fact I can’t remember one since we consolidated
from the standpoint that the sitting Commissioner, even though it’s been some cases
where there’s been some votes not being in the affirmative, sitting Commissioner has
always made the nomination of, of their own appointments. And in some cases there
have been some, some no votes and have basically been approved. I’m just wondering if,
in fairness to the, the maker of the motion for the nominees, and of the nominee himself,
whether it’s one that you have to do today. And I, I say this for the following reason.
Tom Robertson has been a good member of that board, has been there for a very long
time. And I think like a lot of these appointments where maybe you do have a good
member, many of us, even if it wasn’t our original appointment, have been hesitant at
times to make a change because of the continuity of that board and what they have
contributed. Tom probably came on board prior to them getting approval for a lot of
monies that, that have come down the pipe. At the same time, prior to the, the lawsuit
and litigation that Atlanta Gas Light was involved in. But now on the other hand, the
only thing I’m looking at, Jim, is that we’re depending not only on the board member but
47
on a person with a contract to give us, if not in writing, the authenticity of whether or not
we’re getting our money’s value in a legal settlement that we’re trying to get through
with, with Atlanta Gas Company, and the board member is the person that’s in the firm
and making the decisions. And I’m just wondering if that’s not one that you might not
want to hold today, because while, while I, while I agree you could, you could spin that
in a lot of different ways, it’s to a point that I think some things happen after Tom got
there per se. But the point is Tom is there now. And, and the person that we’re
depending on from the standpoint of a contract that we have, as to say whether or not
we’re settling on millions of dollars of value in this particular case, is dependent upon the
person who is a board member, but at the same time employed by us to deal with a
contract. Now, and I tend to differ with you, if not in the law of conflict, but in the spirit
of what has been there. Now, I, I have, I don’t think that I would really had any conflicts
but I came to you with mine [inaudible] so from the standpoint that it was my church that
sued. And we went through two rounds of court with them and got our money, you
know, but every [inaudible] even when I challenged some things that I thought they
should be doing [inaudible] been there and that’s why I didn’t sign off on a recent item
that you dealt with is the fact that as a church member of the original lawsuit that I felt
that I didn’t want anything to be prejudiced by the fact that I sit here on this board of
Commissioners to make decision that Atlanta Gas Light has dealt with. I’ve dealt with it
in other areas that have been in my neighborhood and of where I have been a part of the
proponent of the litigation. Now I think if a case is where I sit here for $12,000 a year
and deal with abstaining to deal with it, then I think that the spirit of the law changes
when you get into seven figures of money and how you sign off on it and then whether or
not you have a conflict. Or at least the spirit of one or the appearance of one. So I beg to
differ in that vein. I, I hate to lose him cause I think he’s a valuable person, but I think
maybe in a point that he might need to decide whether or not to a point he has one or not
in this particular case. And because I wouldn’t want to muddy a good person, a friend
and a member’s name to be in here, but I think you’ve got some, some crossing the lines
or something here to a point of where you’re depending on this one person to carry the
load, to bring the expertise, and to do the contract, and to be a member of the board. And
so I, I, I just have to say that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, to answer Mr. Mays’ question, it’s an appointment that
does not have to be made today. To [inaudible], I can hold that over till next time. It’s
no problem.
Mr. Mays: I particularly don’t necessarily want to vote no for a good person, but
I’d like to kind of hear his side in there a little bit in there, Steve, because I think
[inaudible].
Mr. Shepard:
I have no problem making that inquiry, but there’s no shape, form
or fashion to contracting in terms of the Augusta Port Authority whatsoever, so there
So I’ll amend the motion to go
couldn’t be any connection of anything there, Mr. Mays,
48
ahead and nominate Rick Toole and to carry the nomination of Mr. Robertson to
the next Commission meeting, subject to me talking to him.
Mr. Mays: I’ll second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, is there any further discussion? All in favor of the substitute
motion then please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 52.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
52. Motion to approve the purchase of a new AS/400 iServer for support of law
enforcement.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item 53.
The Clerk:
53. Motion to approve selection of BellSouth as vendor for telephone
services, subject to final contract approval from the City Attorney.
Mr. Boyles: I move to approve.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, do you expect to have that final by the end of this month?
Mr. Wall: I think I’ve already approved everything.
Mr. Mayor: You’ll get that approved on your watch?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
49
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Discussion? All in -- yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Welcome back.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mays: Never should have been gone.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 54.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
54. Consider a request from St. Francis Animal Hospital regarding the tie in to
the detention pond at the site of their new construction. (No recommendation from
Engineering Services Committee December 8, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, you had a recommendation?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, at the Engineering
Services Committee you heard a request from the owners and engineer of St. -- the
proposed St. Francis Animal Hospital to amend your storm water ordinance to allow
them to increase the drainage on Rae’s Creek. You referred it back to the Administration
and staff to review this with them and come back with a recommendation. We have done
that. I think you have a letter to that effect. In effect, we have concerns that even though
it is a minute increase, it is a minimal impact on Rae’s Creek, it does violate the intent of
the ordinance. It’s on the plus side of zero in terms of, of drainage reduction. The
ordinance requires that there be a 10% reduction whenever new development or
redevelopment is contemplated. Had it been on the other side of the zero, maybe would
have had a little more of a problem and then we would have had to make some
determination as to whether there should be a change in the ordinance. But I believe that
if the Commission does amend the ordinance to allow this development, you will open
the door for other exceptions to be requested and you would have -- even though it may
be a case-by-case, you still would be in violation of the true intent of the ordinance. So
therefore I would recommend that you deny the request. However, your option again is
to amend the ordinance, to allow this exception, and again, you would be opening the
door.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, George, I brought this to the attention of the Engineering
Services Committee, mainly because of the fact that they were going to build a new
facility in the county, which would improve the tax digest on the order of $1.7 million.
Now it was my understanding that that, that they had reached some understanding that if
50
we did deny this exception, they could do additional work and it may not cost us the
project. Now isn’t that, isn’t that the understanding as well, Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct. And I can’t call any expenditure minute, but for a
relatively little expense they will be able to do a 10% reduction in the drainage runoff and
for a little bit more they will be able to hold it in a pipe without having to flood their
parking area.
Mr. Shepard: And I think they’re willing to do that, is that correct?
Mr. Kolb: And they were willing to do that, as I understand it. I did not get firm
confirmation of that, but they have looked at those alternatives and could achieve the
requirements under the ordinance.
Mr. Shepard: I think this Commission -- if I could, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: If I could, then I think we want to be as business friendly as
we can, especially when we’re talking about folks who are willing to relocate from
the suburban location to here, but I also ask that the Engineering Services
Committee balance the interest not only of new development, but of runoff, so I
would put the Administrator’s recommendation in the form of a motion that it be
denied and that they be encouraged to spend the extra dollars to locate where they
are.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there discussion on that? All in favor of
that motion then please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is 54A.
The Clerk:
54A. Approve proposed 2004 LARP program list to be submitted to GDOT by
Public Works & Engineering subject to receiving information from Augusta
Utilities that there are no near term conflicts with bond projects.
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
51
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve with a second. Any further discussion on this
item? All in favor then please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, we want to be sure to thank the Commissioner for the
money to do these projects on Monday.
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 56.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
56. Discuss SPLOST referendum.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you put this on?
Mr. Wall: I did put this on. As a result of the action of the Commission that was
necessitated for calling the special election of the Coroner, it occurred to me that the
printing of the ballots now has become the driving force insofar as a lot of these
elections, rather than the time deadlines that are set forth in the Code as far as when you
can call a special election, etc. And so it now has become a practical consideration
versus a legal consideration. The practical consideration of holding the SPLOST
referendum is that if you wanted to have this done in March, you have to have the ballot
questions prepared by the end of December. And then you would have to have the call of
the election because it’s in connection with a federal primary by mid-January. Now I
don’t think that that allows sufficient time for y’all to develop the SPLOST list and to
develop the ballot questions, but that’s a decision for y’all to make. And if you direct
that it be done, then we’ll all go to work and see that, do our best job to see that
accomplished. But I, I had, you know, from a legal standpoint, 29 years in advance of an
election is when you have to call the ballot, but that again, the practical consideration,
because of the new voting system that we’re under, we have to have the ballot questions
prepared by the end of December for a March primary. To give you some other dates,
insofar as the July 20, 2004 election, you would have to have the ballot wording
th
submitted by May 15. And the absentee ballots would have to be ready for issuance no
th
later than June 4, and so the call of the election would obviously have to be sometime
th
within those time parameters before June 4. But technically you could have the ballot
questions prepared and then actually have the call for the special election sometime after
the ballot questions are prepared and submitted to the Board of Elections. September 21,
you’ve got a little different scenario. And then you go back to the regular 29 days in
th
advance of the election, which would be August 24, is when that, the last day for calling
that special election. You get into November general election and again, because of the
ballot wording, that has to be prepared by roughly the mid part of August, and since it’s a
larger ballot it may even be earlier than that, so that you would have to have the ballot
52
nd
questions ready in early to mid August in order for it to get on a November 2 election.
And I wanted to call those deadlines to your attention because again, as I said at the
outset, now it’s no longer just a legal issue about when you can call the election, but a
practical issue and about how long it takes to get the ballot printed.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Wall, for that report. I would think not even having
had the benefit of the report back from the citizens committee it would be a moot issue to
think about having this thing in March, this Commission having a list for you in the next
The Chair would recommend that we receive the Attorney’s report as
weeks.
information
.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor then please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Jim. The next item is number 57.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
57. Motion to approve Resolution for budget amendment regarding flood buyout
of 6 additional homes – 1933 Hopie Road, 1952 Rozella Road, 3101 Chelsea Drive
and 2203, 2205, 2207 Dominion Court. (Information for this item was not available
for the Finance Committee on December 8 and federal regulations require that it be
approved prior to December 31, 2003)
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Did we get those closed?
Mr. Wall: We closed, we are closing two today, I hope.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Wall: When I left the office, they were going to be closed.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to know first of all where we are
on that list and how, how does the Finance come up with the, the, the, I guess the names
of the homes that’s going to be purchased. I’ve got several areas that can’t stand a 30
minute rain in Augusta who’s been fighting for drainage and fighting to get some relief
53
and has not had anybody to contact them and had anybody to, to even let them know.
I’m not opposed to what’s happening here with 57, but there is some flat land, Mr.
Mayor, in this county where people have been truly suffering, more so than the
[inaudible] of this government who floods as well, when it rain, it just don’t rain in the
bottom, it rains on the top as well. But when it rains on the top it runs to the bottom. So
those at the bottom catch more than those at the top catch. And on the corner of Lionel
and Tubman Home Road, there is three residents in that corner who is, who is truly
suffering. I been fighting, fighting about a lot of things, but been fighting about drainage
in that area, trying to relieve something. But no one have even discussed or talked to or
even brought it to the attention of those people. And I guess [inaudible] you know, you
didn’t bring it. And if I had 2,000 arms, 2, 000 legs I probably would have gotten that on
the agenda, too, but I just need to know where the list is, how do you get on the radar
screen, and when will somebody come by and talk to some of these people in that area
that’s really dealing with a low situation. The house do not set on a foundation, it set on
a slab, and they have, they, they, they really are suffering a lot, Mr. Mayor, and I’d like to
know where the list is and what’s the procedure for it.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Turner, can you explain how the list is compiled?
Ms. Turner: Yes, sir. Since 2000, we have been working off the NFIP’s
repetitive loss list. Those are homes that, number one, have flood insurance. And I
realize not all the citizens of this community have flood insurance. And number two,
have sustained two losses of $10,000 or more. So we are doing a, a might job in
exhausting that repetitive loss list. And those rank highest on NFIP’s qualifications for
funding for these types of buyouts. At the same time, we are also compiling a data within
our office, and I invite all of the Commissioners to please submit any homes that you
have that are currently flooding. We will elicit information from those homeowners.
Because we are hoping to be shortly getting approval for the PMC grant that you allowed
me to submit in September, and that will buy out eight more repetitive loss homes and 13
homes along Rocky Creek. So we are looking for the next round of submittal and we’re
going to take worst-case scenarios, highest dollar figures, those types of things. We can’t
buy what we don’t know about. So if you make us aware of these, then we can put them
on that list and you know, come up with the next round of rankings. And Commissioner
Williams, if you will get me those addresses, I will get out and speak with those people
and get them a questionnaire and put them on our data base. We currently have over 160
homes in the data base that we’re collecting, actively collecting material from. Like I
said earlier, not all of them have flood insurance so they don’t hit the radar screen, but
they hit our radar screen and they are important to us and we want to make sure that they
are given equal consideration as we continue in the future to do buy-outs and to look at
projects like relocation and elevation and those sorts of things.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can ask one other question.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
54
Mr. Williams: What, what is the, the guidelines for getting that? I mean is that
first-come, first-served basis? Is that -- I mean what, what criteria do we use to justify
the one that we buy out now versus the one we buy out later?
Ms. Turner: Actually, what we’re buying out now is a piggy-back to a 2000
grand that, that you gentlemen approved in March of 2000. The first 12 homes were
directly off the NFIP repetitive loss list. We have come in and bought more because
there was still funding available through the state and through the federal governments.
We’re asking spending [inaudible] which will come to an end December 31 of this year.
The new grant that we submitted for -- I’ll back up and give you a little history. The old
grant was based on money allocated to the state based on the previous year’s disaster, so
if we had no disaster this year, we’d get no money next year. It was leaving some of the
states high and dry cause they never had the disasters, so they couldn’t do any type of
flood mitigation, although you have to have -- I’m sorry, a Presidential disaster. So they
weren’t getting any funding because they never had a Presidential disaster. So the federal
government has started a new program that’s nationwide and it’s called PDM-C, which is
pre-disaster mitigation - competitive. So what it does is it makes that pool of funding
available each and every year to each and every state and you submit a grant based on
that. Now what they look at, Commissioner, is number of losses, they look at the
elevation of the homes in relation to the base flood elevation, and they do what’s called a
benefit cost analysis. The higher the benefit cost analysis, the more likely the home will
be purchased. For instance, a benefit cost analysis of 2 is considered to be quite good.
The two grants we just submitted in September, one had a 2.7, I believe. That was the
repetitive loss one. The 13 homes adjacent to Rocky Creek had a 25 benefit cost analysis
number. What we discovered in analyzing those homes was that not only were they
flooding in the 100-year storm, they were flooding in the 50- to 25- and the 10-year
storm, so those would rank extremely high nationwide on a competitive basis because the
benefit cost analysis was so high. So as we, as we compile information on these homes,
the higher the BC on each home, the more likely we’ll get funding for it. So we’ll
probably take those first because they make a strong application. And unfortunately, the
next flood sometimes pushes that particular home higher on the list, so it’s not a stagnant
number. It can, because of loss, you know, go up over time and so a home that may not
have a high BC today could unfortunately flood tomorrow and go high up on the list.
And so that’s how we’re doing it so that we can be competitive nationally for these grant
dollars.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. All right. Anyone else have a question? Did we
have a motion, Madame Clerk? We have a motion on the floor to approve. All in favor
of that motion, please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 9-0.
Ms. Turner: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Mays, you’re up next. Madame Clerk, 58.
55
The Clerk:
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
58. Approve purchase of Augusta lapel pins from the Promotion Account.
(Requested by Commissioner Mays)
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: I put this on where the Clerk would have a little clarity, and I know
we got a good laugh out of this last time. But we, we at the stage where they do need to
be ordered, and I think what need to be decided whether we ordering the same pins we
been ordering. I think that’s what she needs to know, whether we got --
Mr. Mayor: Is that the intent of the motion? Who made the motion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, is that the intent of your motion?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, to order the same ones. I think there was enough discussion
that we did not want to go with the script A, Augusta across there, we wanted to keep
these pins and then use that other [inaudible] I think that was what the Administrator
intended to do anyway.
Mr. Mayor: Does that clarify that, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, that, that, that’s fine with me. I had a, I had -- it
gave me a lot of -- I was wondering -- I passed out a lot of them in Opryland and
especially to little kids, it makes a lot easier for me to explain the history of that house on
there, the Old Government House, to a point where I don’t have to explain the house and
then what’s running through the house. So if we keep them like we got them now, that
will be just fine. No problem out of me.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the pin purchase, please vote aye.
56
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: When they come in, be sure Mr. Kuhlke gets a couple. The next
item, number 59.
The Clerk:
59. Discussion of confirmation of Bill Kuhlke to remain Chairman of the Judicial
Center Committee. (Requested by Commissioner Hankerson)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, I’ll call on you in just one second. Let me just state
for the record that I believe it was in September I received a letter of resignation from Mr.
Kuhlke from the position of Chairman of the Judicial Center Committee and subsequent
to the receipt of that letter he and I discussed the potential for him staying on after his
term on the Commission expired. Mr. Kuhlke at that time indicated to me that he would
be willing to stay on after his term expires. So having said that as a matter of
background, I’ll recognize Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had no knowledge of that, but in my
weekend thought process of this transition that we’ll be going through for the next
coming year with a new Attorney and also with two Commissioners leaving,
Commissioner Kuhlke and Commissioner Beard have worked diligently on the Judicial
Center project. However, since we at the peak of the project, I think it, it would be wise
for us to allow Mr. Kuhlke to continue to remain as Chairman of the, of the Judicial
Center Committee until we deem necessary, because of the hard work that has been put
into this, and I just don’t think it would be wise for us to change right in the middle of
So I would like
this. We’re right at the peak of -- some crucial decisions must be made.
to put it in the form of a motion that we allow Commissioner Bill Kuhlke to remain
as Chairman of the Judicial Center Committee until that committee’s duties have
ceased.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I initially stated about this position for my
good friend and my past colleague, Commissioner Kuhlke. I was really thinking about
the new Commission that’s been elected, that’s coming on. In fact, I had really high
hopes for Commissioner Jimmy Smith to kind of step in that position. God forbid that
Commissioner Kuhlke visit James Brown Blvd. with Mr. Mays before any time soon, but
if something happens like that, then we would have to put somebody in that position.
You know, we act like we don’t -- I mean, a light goes on. I mean, Bill has done a great
job, and I think we ought to pat him on the back for that. But I think we got men that’s
coming on and men, even on this panel already, that could really do equally as well. My
57
question, though, and I go back to Jim, is that going to be a conflict? And I don’t want to
put Bill in a box, knowing he’s a businessman, and hopefully, if Mr. Mays don’t do a lot
of business, he’ll still be a businessman for a long time, but what happens if he sits on
this board in this position, and then work comes up through his firm, is that going to
exclude him from having the opportunity to make money? Because that’s his middle
name, I mean, it’s all about money when it comes to Bill. So, we -- I mean, let’s be real,
now. We need to be real, because if that’s going to be a conflict, I don’t think we ought
to put him in that box and not allow his firm or his businesses to be able to bid on and be
a part of the process. That’s a lot of money that’s going be spent to do that. We talking
about using hometown business. And we’re going to ask him to serve on that board, and
then exclude him from being a part of that board -- we just talked about that a few
minutes, Commissioner Shepard, about the conflict. Now, Jim, is that a conflict or not?
Let me hear from my legal attorney.
Mr. Wall: It would be a conflict for him to serve on both the board to choose the
builder who would ultimately build, and also be allowed to bid on the project himself.
Just because he is, may be affiliated with a construction business does not preclude him
from continuing to serve. It just means that he -- he’s got to make a choice.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, let me tell you what I learned from Mr. Shepard. That
is, when you ask a lawyer, when you ask a question of somebody, you want an answer,
yes or no. All this other legal jabber that the attorney just gave me -- I didn’t ask him
that.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: I need to know, would there be a conflict. And then I had another
question. But I don’t want to put Commissioner Kuhlke in a box. That’s my thing. If he
is able to, if he’s able to withdraw --
Mr. Wall: Every one of you is in the same box because y’all have to make a
decision whether you’re going to do business with the City.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the Chair will take exception with your opinion, Mr. Wall,
because I’m going to read from the legislative act that created this government. And it
says, no elected official of this government shall be eligible to do business with, or
receive any contract from, such government, except through competitive bids. So these
Commissioners can do business with this government, as long as it’s in a competitive
environment. And if you apply that same test to appointed officials, then it’s consistent
with the law that established this government.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor, if I can finish please? I was interrupted there
by you. But that’s all right.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Just to bring clarity to the legal opinion.
58
Mr. Williams: And I appreciate that, Mr. Mayor. You helped me out a lot. But
if, if either one of two things needs to happen is, you know, he declines any involvement.
But if he’s going to sit on that board to make decisions or know about decisions that
going be made, or know about forthcoming work that’s going to be coming, and then he’s
going to have the opportunity to bid on it, that’s unfair. And I wouldn’t want to put him
in that box. I’m supportive of him. I don’t think Jimmy raised his hand when I said it,
when I called his name, but I’d certainly like to have him in that position. But that’s my
two cents. And I’ll let y’all have it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just -- to follow on your comments, I think we passed
within the last couple of years when we had our IT Director negotiate a contract and then
go to work for the firm that he negotiated the contract with, we prohibited government
employees from doing business with the City for a period of I believe two years on
contracts, especially on contracts that they had negotiated on behalf of the City. That was
passed in the form of an ordinance, I believe, a few years back. Two or three years back.
So I think in addition to the language in the bill there is additional language that supports
prohibition on any government employee, part time or full time, negotiating a contract or-
- in this same light -- coming back and bidding on that contract and benefiting from it.
Mr. Wall: I agree with that, but the issue is whether or not he’s precluded from
continuing to serve as Chairman.
Mr. Cheek: I don’t have a problem with that. As long as that’s in place, I just,
you know, that’s always been one of my pet peeves, is people in government doing
business with government. Augusta has got a long history of a lot of rich people in this
city that have done that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion before the Commission to confirm Mr. Kuhlke to
remain as Chairman of the Judicial Center Committee. Is there any further discussion on
that motion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Remain as Chairman for how long? Is that indefinite? Is that
going to be until the building is built? Is that going to be until we appoint somebody
else? Is that going to be -- what, what time frame? Cause if you say that, then he’ll be
there until the duration. And I just need to have clarification.
Mr. Hankerson: I said until the board deem necessary.
Mr. Williams: Until the board? Which board is that? This board? This body or
the board he’s on?
59
Mr. Hankerson: The ten Commissioners. Board of Commissioners.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I, I, I can accept that. Until this board deem necessary.
Mr. Mayor: In other words, he’ll serve at the pleasure of the City Commission.
Anything further?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, is your hand up?
Mr. Cheek: Uh-uh [no].
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to vote for my, my Super District
colleague. I guess I’ve put him a little bit in that box cause I told him [inaudible] chance
to argue with him a little while longer and do a few things so he wasn’t going to get off
the hook with that, just ain’t going to get no money for doing nothing. But now what,
what I want to know, and I guess it was kind of before you and, and Jim, just for a point
of information, Mr. Mayor, you know, you brought up about the legislation in that it dealt
with the government. But did we deal with something, Jim, after the legislation that dealt
specifically with the conflict clause, though?
Mr. Wall: Well, we do. And, but it’s not a conflict. I mean it’s consistent with
that. I mean [inaudible], now I agree with the Mayor that if Mr. Kuhlke wanted to bid on
selling fire trucks to the City or something else, I think he’s not precluded from that. But
I do disagree that simply because it’s a sealed bid process that Mr. Kuhlke, who would be
involved in the, a lot of the considerations about the design of it, the building of it, etc.,
that simply because it’s a sealed bid process that there would be no conflict insofar as if
one of his companies or him individually or a company that he may be affiliated with
bidding on that project, even though it’s sealed bid. I mean, so we did pass an ethics
ordinance that is more comprehensive than that single provision within the consolidation
bill. But you know, the fact that he’s in a construction business does not preclude him
from serving as Chairman and is not a conflict with his being chairman of a committee
that’s involved in the design and construction of the Judicial Center.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, and I, and I agree, I think it’s our benefit that, that he
does. But, and not speaking for him, but to a point I guess of getting back to what boxed
you do confine a person to. I just wanted to, to have it clear that if hypothetically that
situation arose, would we have to give approval to that? Because number one, I think
that, that Mr. Kuhlke by his own integrity, if something came up to a point that he wanted
to do and felt as thought it might be questionable, I think he would be the first person to
bring that to us [inaudible] at that point. And I think that, that clears it from that, that
standpoint. I mean I ain’t going, I ain’t going, I ain’t going [inaudible] the last item
60
[inaudible] we eating breakfast or lunch and arguing about [inaudible], but to a point that
I guess what called my attention to it was when the Mayor talked about [inaudible]
legislation and about how did that compare with the two year separation that you were
talking about. I just didn’t want it to come back to a point that if what you’re saying is
legitimate and then we turn around like Marion would say and then penalize him for
being in a position that we put him in, to say no, he could not do that, now -- and I, and I
think that that’s what needs to be clear, that you don’t offer that to a person, use their
services and their time and expertise and then leave them in a position to where,
[inaudible] oh, no, you, you need to leave, or worse, you should have left. That’s even
worse than you need to leave. And that’s, that’s kind of, Mr. Mayor, where I just wanted
to make sure if the, if the sealed bid situation [inaudible] then fine, but I know we had a
situation that dealt with -- you talked about employees on situation of, of a, of a
firefighter that had bidded, I believe, and that we ruled in reference to employment of
him being in the department, that it was a moot issue because he was working here and
should not have bid it. Now we did that. So now that, that somewhat now is in conflict
with the provision of sealed bid, wouldn’t it be?
Mr. Wall: No, as I said, the Fire Department employee was selling fire equipment
to the City. Now if he had been, as a Fire Department employee running a catering
business and wanted to bid on catering for the City, then he didn’t have any inside
information. So I mean if he wanted to bid on catering for the City, he could do that.
And, and likewise like I said, with Mr. Kuhlke, now if he wants to get in the fire truck
business and offer fire trucks and submits [inaudible] bids, then he doesn’t have any
inside information insofar as fire trucks. Where he may have some inside information is
how the Judicial Center might be constructed.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me --
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] conflict.
Mr. Mays: Jim, let me narrow the scope just a little bit. Let’s not get into fire
trucks and catering business. Let’s narrow it. If you got a builder, the Chairman of the
committee, and he needs to build, and because [inaudible] the conflict, what I’m saying is
I want us to be clear to a point where we’re not hitting him in the head a year or year-and-
a-half down the road to say okay, no, you can’t because you’re in there. I just think that
needs to be clear from the standpoint not only of a colleague, a friendship and about
business. If that’s clear, then I have no problem with it at all. I’m, I’m just trying to get
that clear. Because you are talking about the same level of business now.
Mr. Wall: And in my opinion, absent a waiver from the Commission, that would
be a conflict for him to bid on building the Judicial Center where he is involved in, in the
design and specifications and supervision of that. [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: Okay, but from the point we are and he’s only dealing with staying
Chairman, he’s staying working, and the occasion that would make that a conflict would
first have to arise and to be determined. Am I correct?
61
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Mays: Okay, then I think that answers at least in my book, it does from the
standpoint that that keeps him clear. My main interest is where that you don’t penalize
him for dealing with that and for providing a service further on down the road. Because
you making the opinion today and obviously you may be gone on that issue. I don’t
st
know. We may pass something December 31 and make you stay, you know. Figure out
a way to do that where you can’t leave, can’t get paid, can’t draw none of your other
benefits, Mr. Mayor, I still may hook that up.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] he [inaudible] bid on a Recreation Department building or
a Fire Department building, I mean he can do that.
Mr. Mays: On anything there. But I just, I thought, I thought it would be unfair
from the other side of that pendulum that you put him in a position and that he’s locked in
to a point where he can basically do nothing other than give free advice and free service.
And that’s what I wanted to get clear. Cause see you’ll be gone and then you know, you
know how you lawyers do. One of y’all make a decision to go left and you know, it may
be in October another attorney say oh, no, he didn’t rule right, and then you got, you got
my colleague there messed up. You have where he won’t even be able to get his tobacco
money. So that’s fine. I just wanted to make sure [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: I know Mr. Kuhlke appreciates everyone’s concern for his --
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to get some clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further on the motion?
Mr. Williams: Need some clarification, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, what is that, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I heard what Mr. Wall said, but he said if Bill or anybody else on
that board wanted to bid on anything other than the, the center, he’s got a right to do that.
Is that --
Mr. Wall: If it’s a sealed bid.
Mr. Williams: He’s got a right to bid on anything other than that, you’re saying?
Mr. Wall: I apologize, but anything is a broad word. But he has the right to bid
on construction projects that don’t involve the Judicial Center --
62
Mr. Williams: Okay, don’t involve. That’s the word I’m looking for. Don’t
involve. He can, he can bid on anything that don’t involve, as long as he meet the
guideline. And I just want to make sure it’s clear, like Mr. Mays do. I don’t want to put
him in a box where he gets there and you know, and then decide to do something and,
and, and you gone to the Bahamas and then Steve or somebody else down there saying
something different. I’m ready to vote, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Two things, if I could.
Mr. Mayor: Are you looking out for Mr. Kuhlke, too?
Mr. Boyles: Two things, if I could. Number one, I think that, my personal
opinion, I think we’re fortunate if Mr. Kuhlke would continue in this position. Number
two, I think the word integrity comes into play because many years ago I came to work
for Richmond County under his father and I retired under him. His daughter worked for
me for 15 years. I think if a conflict were to come up, I think Bill would be the first one
to tell us there’s conflicts. I think we’ve just made, I think we’ve just added two more
legs to the donkey. Started out with four legs and now the donkey has got six. So I think
we’re very fortunate that Mr. Kuhlke would decide to keep this position.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Boyles. Did you get that in the minutes? He
compared our Commissioner to a six-legged donkey.
(Laughter)
Mr. Boyles: And you can highlight that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right, is there anything further? We have a motion on the
floor. Let’s vote on the motion. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Kuhlke abstain.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: I queried Mr. Mays with respect to item 61. He said that he wanted
to add that to the legal agenda; is that correct, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I believe so. I just wanted to make sure we had a
placeholder for it.
63
Mr. Mayor: All right, do we have -- Mr. Wall, some items for the legal meeting?
Let’s build that agenda and we’ll go into our legal session. Be item number 61.
Mr. Wall: Litigation matters in addition to the personnel matter that is part of 61.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Well, let’s go -- let’s set the agenda and then we’ll go back
and take up 60. I’m sorry. Skipped over that. Okay, do we have a motion to go into
legal session for those items?
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second?
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor of going into legal session after we deal
with item 60, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Now we’ll back up and take item 60. I’m sorry.
The Clerk:
60. Discuss transitional period of Attorney Jim Wall. (Requested by
Commissioner Hankerson)
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, thank you.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry I overlooked your item there>
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I hope this is not a conflict of interest.
(Laughter)
Mr. Hankerson: We are, we are almost to begin a transitional period for our chief
Attorney and in Mr. Wall’s letter, October 7, 2003, when he informed us that he would
not be, wish to be reappointed, he did mention in the letter he was willing to help us
through a transition if we, if we wanted him to here and desire to handle some of the
matters that they already have, if that would be our wish, to help us in some way. So I
thought it was necessary for us, since this is the last, supposedly the last meeting of the
year that we know where we are going on January 1, whether we want Mr. Wall to
continue in some of the litigation that he’s already involved in, the sludge, and the X-
Mart, or anything that we may want him to finish or just help in this transition with a new
64
Attorney coming on board, whatever assistance that he may give and how long do we
want him to do that. I thought it need to be discussed in this meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Do you have a specific proposal, Mr. Hankerson, or you just want to
put this out for discussion?
Mr. Hankerson: I put it on the agenda for the comments and then I can, yes, I
have a proposal.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, did you want to respond to the Commissioner’s comment?
Mr. Wall: Well, I talked to Commissioner Hankerson briefly earlier during the
day today concerning this, and I recognize that there are certain pieces of litigation and
certain things that I’ve been involved in that it only makes sense that, in my mind, for me
to continue to handle because bringing someone up to speed with that could be done,
obviously, but it would, it may take some time and may delay some things. And I think
that’s something that I’m not sure how to work out other than wait and see who is
selected as the new Attorney, and sit down with that person and work through it as far as
which items in his or her mind they deem to be most appropriate to, for me to continue
being -- for my firm to continue to handle and which ones, for whatever reason he may
choose to take on himself. And I think all of that would, is something that perhaps needs
to be addressed once the new Attorney is selected. I have committed to working with
whomever is selected insofar as the transition of the files, transition of the work,
transition of the litigation, and, and I don’t know of another way of doing it other than
sitting down with a list and I would love to turn over a 2-1/2 page list that I made the
other day of the things that I was going to try to accomplish before the end of the year.
I’m not going to get to all of them. But I think we’re just going to have to work through
it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson:
Well, I would like to put in the form of a motion, since we
have, we will have a new Attorney coming on board, for Mr. Wall to at least remain for
about 90 days. If it takes longer, at the end of 90 days we decide that, but that would help
give a smooth transition and the day-to-day operation and everything that’s going on. I
don’t know what all the Attorney’s involved in, but I do know that coming on a new job
and all these cases that we have and everything, SPLOST and everything, I think that,
d. I’d like to put in the form of a
that that expertise, expertise there would be goo
motion that, that we allow Mr. Wall to remain for the transitional period of 90 days
and after that we would decide whether we would still need his service or whether
when the new Attorney comes on, whether or not that he would want him to
continue the litigations and so forth.
Mr. Wall: I, I would like to address that. I don’t want to be committed to a 90-
day time period for all matters that come before the Commission. I don’t think that is a
transition. What I have expressed a willingness to do is to work with whomever is
65
selected for a transition, but you know, that may involve five hours a week, it may
involve 40 hours a week. I don’t know. Because it depends on who that Attorney is,
what responsibility he wants to assume, what projects are going on at that time, what
needs to be done, but I would ask not to be asked to give a commitment for another 90
days under the, where in essence I would be subject to call, just as I am currently.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: What I wanted to see if
I kind of concur with what Jim’s saying.
you might consider is an amendment maybe to -- you could set a period of up to 90
days to come to a resolution on the transition. That, you know, might be what Jim
would continue to handle on a consulting basis with whoever the Attorney is that
you, that you hire, but more, more from a consulting standpoint and also a
transition standpoint from what he might stay involved in on his own.
I’m
wondering if you would accept that as an amendment and if that would be acceptable to
you, Jim.
Mr. Hankerson: I accept that.
Mr. Mayor: We need a second to that motion.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Just a point of inquiry. Is there, is there any issue, Jim,
with you at our first meeting in January as our legal advisor until the election of your
successor at that meeting?
Mr. Wall: Well --
Mr. Mayor: Is there an issue with that?
Mr. Wall: Well, enough of an issue that I was concerned about it that I asked
Harry James and Vanessa to render an opinion because I didn’t want to be responsible
for, for rendering an opinion concerning my own service.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Wall: But it is their opinion and I concur with it that I continue to serve until
the successor is appointed. And that election is supposed to be made at the first meeting.
And so depending on the order of the agenda items, I serve until y’all select a successor, I
think. Unless I resign, which I’m not going to do.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for clarifying that. All right, is there any further
discussion on the motion from Mr. Hankerson as amended? All in favor, then please vote
in the --
66
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I would like to say that I’m glad he committed himself to be here,
which he might have got himself into something there, because didn’t you say you’d be
here till we got a successor?
(Laughter)
Mr. Wall: Unless I resign.
(Laugher)
Mr. Mays: I mean we got the votes to say we don’t have to accept your
resignation.
Mr. Mayor: We are voting on the motion. A yes vote keeps Mr. Wall around for
a little longer [inaudible].
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will note that the motion passes unanimously. We will
now go into legal session for the items that we use to craft the legal session agenda.
63. LEGAL MEETING.
• Discuss personnel. (Requested by Commissioner Mays)
• Discuss personnel matters.
• Discuss litigation matters.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor: All right. All right. All right, we, if we can come back to session.
First of all, I need a motion authorizing the Mayor to sign the affidavit.
64. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, is there any objection? None is heard. So I will execute the
affidavit.
Motion carries 9-0.
67
Mr. Mayor: Now the next item on the agenda is to approve a settlement.
65. Approve settlement of litigation matter.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, would you like to help couch the motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll go ahead and make the motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to move that we go ahead and enter into an
agreement with the Williams firm with the settlement with Atlanta Gas Light, that
we hire a consulting engineer to protect our interest during the construction of canal
project and that we approve a contract on the relocation, the proposed relocation of
the rail on the property on Fenwick Street.
And Jim, was there one other issue?
Mr. Wall: There was a consulting agreement with Cranston, Robertson and
Whitehurst.
Mr. Kuhlke: Right.
Mr. Wall: To look at it, and then the final thing was to direct the staff to
look at bringing back the necessary information insofar as financing the canal
improvements.
Mr. Kuhlke: Exactly.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Let me
just state that I want to, appreciate the work that staff or Legal Department and the
Commissioners have done on this agreement. I think it’s an important project to
Augusta. We have a fair settlement, a settlement that is fair to the taxpayers of this
community. We’re getting the value that we have sought all along in our arrangement
with the Atlanta Gas Light Company and I think this is a very appropriate move to
approve this motion tonight. All in favor of the motion as stated by the Attorney and Mr.
Kuhlke, please vote aye.
Mr. Cheek: Attorney Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Mayor: Attorney and Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Kuhlke: Been elevated.
68
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] career [inaudible].
Mr. Williams, Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Mays: Let the record note that on these items particularly, because it’s
dealing with the connection of Georgia Natural Gas that I abstain [inaudible] conflict
[inaudible] and the lawsuit that was entered [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Is there any other business to come before this body?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I move that we have a recess.
Mr. Mayor: All right, there is a motion that we recess this meeting until
th
11:30 a.m. until the 29 of December. Is that your motion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you’ll clear the board we’ll take a vote on the
motion to recess. All in favor of the recess then please vote in the affirmative. 11:30 on
th
the 29. That’s committee days, right?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: We are in recess.
[MEETING RECESSED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on December 16, 2003.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
69